GPL "grey area" questions

[Matthew Flaschen]

David A. Desrosiers wrote:
> 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. 

It's okay to put in a click-through; it's just that the GPL doesn't put 
any restrictions on use (even on multiple computers by a single entity), 
so it's really unnecessary.  Don't take the FSF's recommendations too 
seriously; they would frown on you using a proprietary installer in it 
of itself, but you shouldn't worry about it.

> 
> 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

Distributing the code with that license is blatantly illegal.  The GPL 
specifically states "You may not impose any further restrictions on the 
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."  Clauses like "You 
may not: [...]" "Use the Program in a network or other multi-user 
arrangement or on an electronic bulletin board system or other remote 
access arrangement." , "Reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or 
create derivative works of the Program.", or "Make copies of the 
Program" (except copies on your personal computers for your personal 
use) are clearly additional restrictions.

> 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). 

Yes, but they don't add additional restrictions to the GPL code.  They 
also generally make clear that the individual packages are under their 
own licenses.  In other words, they are GPL-compatible.

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

This is clearly unacceptable.  The GPL demands "keep intact all the 
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; 
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License 
along with the Program."  It does not say link to a web page that links 
to a zipped source file that has a notice and the GPL.
> 
>> It is not.  Fair's fair: everybody who distributes the program has to
>> provide the source on their own as well.

This is true for all commercial distributions (including this kind); 
non-commercial distributors can distribute a "written offer" of source 
if that is all they have.

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

If you have a lawyer, you can get them to send an intimidating cease and 
desist letter on their letterhead.  That should do it if you're dealing 
with a small company.  If it doesn't, you'll probably have to actually 
sue; then, they'll likely settle with you out of court...

Matthew Flaschen