Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear URL verification patch

[leee <le...@sp...>]

On Tuesday 27 Oct 2009, Rob Shearman, Jr. wrote:
> Leee, you said "If someone were to redistribute
>
> an altered binary derived from a GPL'd work without making the
> corresponding source code available then it is a straightforward
> violation of the GPL and that is where the remedy should be
> sought".
>
> Yet that is exactly what we believe is happening with this
> FlightProSim company.

Then we need to prove that it's an altered copy of FG, and then 
request the source code containing the amendment.  I can't see 
anything in the GPL concerning altered binaries but if it is a 
derivative work then it must still comply with the GPL and this 
means making the corresponding source code available.  In this case 
then, if someone amends the binary, they must make available source 
code that reflects the amendment.  Failure to do so would be a 
violation of the license, which then precludes them from using or 
distributing the work.

>
> "Trying to use the GPL inappropriately, as it seems we are doing
> here, is asking for trouble as it could be argued that it is
> impossible to comply with the license, making it invalid, and
> thereby leaving the FG data material completely unprotected."
>
> What protection is the GPL giving us, if we know of a violator
> but seem to have no ability to effect enforcement?

The GPL doesn't protect us i.e. the developers - it protects the 
software.

The relevant part of the GPL here is Condition 4, which says 

"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program 
except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt 
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is 
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this 
License.[...]

So if there is a violation of the license then the violator loses 
all rights to use or redistribute the work.  If we can show that a 
violation has occurred then our first action is to inform the 
violator that they are in violation of the license and that they 
must desist.  In the strictest terms, they have already lost any 
rights, but in practice, and in most of the cases where it has 
happened, the violator has been allowed to continue their 
distribution if they comply with the license.  The idea after all, 
is not to prevent redistribution but to encourage it.

However, if the violator refuses to comply and continues 
distributing the work then you have to decide how to persue the  
matter.  This might range from serving a formal legal notice to 
contacting the companies or organisations further up the 'internet' 
hierarchy e.g. the hosting provider or the appropriate controlling 
body, and telling them that they are providing a service, or that a 
service is being provided, for an illegal activity and having been 
given notice of this, they should act to stop it.

Note that even if you charge money for your GPL'd work, you can't 
expect to obtain any compensation for a violation of the GPL.  Even 
though you may charge for your work, anyone else is able to obtain 
the code and distribute it for no charge.  In view of this then, I 
don't think anyone would accept that you have suffered a material 
loss from the violation as you would suffer the same loss from 
compliant redistribution.

LeeE