GPL "grey area" questions

[David A. Desrosiers]

I'm in the process of composing my second warning to a company using our
software without bringing themselves into compliance with the GPL. I've
emailed them back in June and they replied that they would make the
necessary changes. To date, they have done nothing. 

So I'm wondering about a few "grey area" questions about GPL
compliance: 

Here's the story: 

Company X took our GPL application (which is both viewer and generator
to produce files for that viewer), rebranded it, and sold it to their
customers for $30.00 per-copy. This is purely 1 viewer and 1 document
sold for this price. 

So far, nothing wrong with this approach. Their "branding" is minor and
nothing that would change the viewer in any significant way. It simply a
custom icon and a custom ID so their viewer knows to load their
documents and not ours (and vice versa). 

However, they do not mention the GPL at any point during the application
installation, nor is the COPYING file (or any version of the GPL)
included in their distributed copy of this application (repacked as a
Windows self-installing .exe file).

They contend that the user can install the application onto their device
(Palm, PocketPC, whatever), launch the application, go to the About
screen, find our project page's URL, go to the project page, download
the "original" source, and find the GPL in there. 

But in their response to my original request, they said they would show
the GPL to the user at application install time, and they haven't done
anything to comply with that promise as yet (~3 months ago and
counting). 

So my questions are: 

1.) Are they required to ship the COPYING file with their rebranded
version of our application? 

2.) Are they required to display the GPL before the application is
installed, to give the user a chance to decline the installation based
on that license? 

3.) Are they allowed to "compile" the actual GPL text itself into a
self-installing Windows executable, such that it requires you to launch
and run the executable before you can view the license? 

4.) Is it sufficient to say "We got this code over here to make this
product. You can go over there too and get your own copies." Or are they
supposed to provide their OWN versions of the modified code, no matter
how minor the modifications are?

Thanks everyone. 


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

"Erosion of civil liberties... is a threat to national security."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.gnumonks.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20060926/fe0233f4/attachment.pgp