GPL "grey area" questions

[David A. Desrosiers]

> A copy of the GPL should accompany the software whenever it's distributed,
> whether verbatim or modified, whether in source or binary form.

Ok, so at this point they are still out of compliance with this
section. 

> Certainly, it's not acceptable to have people download the source before
> they get the license.  Otherwise, they may not realize they're entitled to
> it.

I agree. 

> No.  In fact, FSF recommends against putting the GPL in a click-through;
> see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ClickThrough>.  

Here's the problem: Without clicking that you agree, you can't proceed.
Since the Windows installer isn't OSS or GPL, I can't "hack the source"
to bypass the license/EULA checkpoint here. 

But in this case, they aren't displaying the GPL at all, and in fact,
are only displaying their (MUCH more restrictive) license instead, which
I've anonymized and put at the following link: 

http://code.gnu-designs.com/st_license.txt

> Think of it this way: does your typical GNU/Linux distribution require 
> you to accept the GPL?  :)

Quite a few of the newer distros are now showing their own EULA (though
not the GPL) at install time. If you don't agree, you can't install it
(the latest SuSE is one of these, I just verified 10.1 in VMware). 

> I suspect that depends on what the executable does, and what you have to do
> to get the license out of it.  If the executable is the installer, and it
> prominently displays the license, I think that's probably fine.

It prominently displays (and requires you to agree to) their license, no
mention of the GPL or the license that binds the software they're
installing for the user. 

> If the executable is the program itself, and the license is tucked away deep in
> menus so it's hard to find, that's probably not okay.  This is a very gray
> area.

Here's where it gets tricky: 

You install their application, after agreeing to their license/EULA
(which is several orders of magnitude more restrictive than the GPL that
binds the actual software they're distributing)

You then sync your Palm or PocketPC device, which transports the
"viewer" application and their custom document to your handheld. 

You launch the viewer application on your handheld, and go to the
menubar menus -> Help -> About, and are shown "our" About screen, which
has our project page's URL on it. 

This is the ONLY place where you are told that the application is
licensed under the GPL. 

> It is not.  Fair's fair: everybody who distributes the program has to
> provide the source on their own as well.

Ok, then they are still out of compliance.. I will notify them a second
time. The first message I've sent them, with complete details about how
to bring themselves into compliance was posted here back in June, and
they replied that they would make those changes, and never did. 

Sigh, this is such a time-suck, tracking down and _staying on top of_
these companies, making promises they never intend to keep. 

What's the next step, if they continue to ignore my requests? 


-- 
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/20060926/84d0268f/attachment.pgp