RE: [Deinterlace-discuss] Posibel gpl violation?

[John A. <jo...@ad...>]

> Wow, if Leadtek really did this, then they have really done a bad
> thing.  LGPL does not give up rights and ownership of a project to a
> corporate entity who decides they need the code to improve their
> product. If they really have stripped the license and the
> copyright(s)
> from the code, then this is a serious legal offense.  They can
> distribute the library and even sell the service of distributing it,
> but they can't make closed modifications, remove previous copyrights,
> and strip the LGPL.  Unfortunately, I think this happens a lot, but
> doesn't get caught very often.

From Torbjorn discription this is exactly what they have done.  But let's
not be too hasty in attacking them yet.  It looks like the same thing that
happened with Hauppauge has happened again. I'll try and find a contact
e-mail when their site is up again.  I expect this will be resolved ina
similar as with Hauppage and they will comply once they are told they have
done something wrong.

> Here's FSF's checklist for possible violation of the license
> (including LGPL), and what to do:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
>

The only people who are able to do anything about a violation is us the
copyright holders.  If we get nowhere or get a brush off we will try the
tried and tested approach of posting this to slashdot.

John