Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and ReactOS)

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Neil Brown wrote:
> license..." and "You must license..." - clause 2, LGPL 2.1, for example,
> requires that a distributor of a modified work "must cause ... the
> work... to be licensed" - it's not clear to me that there is an inherent
> licence grant if the distributor decides to breach the licence terms.
> 
> This really is something which you should discuss, in respect of your
> particular situation, with a lawyer qualified in your jurisdiction, to
> find out if your defence, if my (many) assumptions above are correct, is
> one based on you having a valid licence, or else )

Agree completely. Without all the facts it is very hard to make any
kind of legal argument.

As to your last argument, GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 both have statements to the
effect that "Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on
the Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor". Arguably this applies even when a redistribution is
unauthorized, so that the OP could invoke the LGPL's rights granted to
him in a defence against the company's accusations.

However, I am not sure copyright is at all an issue. I saw a reference to
Easter Eggs, which sounds more like a bad workmanship/defamation kind
of claim. Some companies consider Easter Eggs to be unprofessional.
Or perhaps there was exposure of proprietary data (even if the software
is open source, input data sets could be confidential or proprietary).

Arnoud

-- 
IT lawyer, blogger and patent attorney ~ Associate at ICTRecht.nl legal services
        http://www.arnoud.engelfriet.net/ ~ http://www.iusmentis.com/