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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
