Build Scripts and GPL

[David A. Desrosiers]

On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 15:22 +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> The GPL was selected with
> intent, but my doubt was that a license could be useless if "scripts
> necessary to compile/install" wouldn't be touched by it. 

As you know, the GPL doesn't just cover "compiled" or "modified" code,
it covers the work as a whole (assuming you've licensed it as such, and
not dual-licensed part of your work in another context). 

If your "scripts" were included in their distribution, sans your
copyright notice and required COPYING file, then they would be in
violation of the copyright which binds those scripts.

Additionally, I think this might also fall under a Lanham Act violation,
which (if memory serves), includes "False designation of origin". If
they claim that the scripts came from them (because they've taken out
your information from them), then they are likely violating that as
well. 

We've dealt with something similar years ago on one of our projects,
where a commercial company took the entire codebase, stripped out our
names and copyright from all of the files and the UI bits, and just
relicensed it under their own proprietary, commercial license, and were
selling it for >$1,000/copy to partners. When we contacted those
"partners", asking for the source to the modified version they were
selling and distributing, we received very threatening calls and letters
from the parent company who originally took our code without adhering to
the license. 

They wanted us to pay $49.95 for a floppy disk of our own (unmodified)
code back, to "prove" that they were using our clean source in their
distributions of their commercial product. The floppy disk didn't
include their modified version, it only included a copy of the public
download of OUR code from our website. 

The stripping out of our own copyright information and the inclusion of
our other (non-compiled) resources, files and texts in their product
suite brought them into the investigation of a violation of the GPL in
this particular case. 

To date, there has been no official resolution on that issue (including
getting an FSF lawyer involved for a few years), and from what we can
tell, they're still redistributing our code in their commercial
products, but now they're shipping those products in a vendor's ROM on a
device selling millions of units per-quarter. 

Sigh. I feel your pain. 


-- 
David A. Desrosiers
desrod at gnu-designs.com
http://gnu-designs.com

"Erosion of civil liberties... is a threat to national security."