Hi,
I'm the author of FileZilla (http://sourceforge.net/projects/filezilla), an GPL'ed FTP client for Windows.
I've a problem with a company which tries to sell FileZilla under a different name, though they have released it under the GPL as well. They have just renamed my program but have added some information that 'their' product has been derived from FileZilla. The source code of their version is also available, so far it is all GPL compliant.
But the problem is, that they have made it trialware with nagscreens on startup and shutdown, you have to register it after 15 days of use or it won't start any longer.
Is this allowed or does it get in conflic with section 4 of the GPL: "[...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. [...]
I'm already in contact with that company and they claim that they do not violate this section of the GPL, because they are doing a really strange trick: They are using a launcher which will display the registration screen on startup and which will launch the actual app. And after the trial expires, everyone can still run the original app without any restriction. However, there is no information anywhere that the original app can be started directly and the launcher tells you that you have to register. So the majority (if not all) of the users will think that they really have to register.
Also, this company comes with the argument that other companies like Lindows and Red Hat are selling GPL software. But those companies don't use such tricks like launchers or trialware. Also, they are distributors and they have created at least some code on their own. And in case of Red Hat Linux, it is freely available on their FTP servers. You pretty much pay for the CDs, the manuals and the support rather than for the software.
Please help me with this issue, does this company violate the GPL or is this allowed? Is it valid to sell trialware GPL software?
Regards, Tim Kosse
Hi Tim, That's a terrible situation, I hope others on the list can give you more useful advice.
Section 2(c) could be of use for future versions. You can add a note that is displayed on execution of filezilla saying the terms of use and how to view the full copy of the GPL. Section 2(c) says that modified versions must retain such a notice.
GNU GPL Section 2(c): If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
Ciaran O'Riordan
Hi Tim,
|| On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 22:54:01 +0200 || "Tim Kosse" tim.kosse@gmx.de wrote:
tk> Please help me with this issue, does this company violate the GPL tk> or is this allowed? Is it valid to sell trialware GPL software?
This is a tricky situation that would need to be investigated more deeply to come up with a qualified final ruling.
From reading your mail I got the impression that it is likely they are violating the GPL. Not because they are selling GPL software -- that is perfectly legal -- but because they deliberately seem to hide information about the freedoms associated with the application.
So it seems likely they are violating the clauses of paragraphs 1 and 3 of the GPL; do they distribute it with source code? If not, where is their written offer to do so? Is a copy of the GPL in the distribution in a reasonably visible location?
Also it might be possible to argue in terms of customer protection, because what they are doing is suggesting to customers that they have relicensed this program in a proprietary way.
Although it seems they avoided that technically, sometimes courts will base their decisions upon appearance to the customers.
As for general treatment of such matters, experience shows that making such cases public decreases the chances of finding a solution because it makes the other party much less willing to listen/compromise for feeling accused publicly.
So posting this on discussion, a public mailing list, might not have been the best idea for your specific case, although the discussion might certainly be generally useful to others.
On http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html you'll find some good information about how to deal with GPL license violations.
Likewise, the GPL FAQ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html can never be recommended enough.
For general license questions, you can always mail licensing@gnu.org.
If you seek assistance by the FSF to deal with potential license violations, you can always contact us directly.
As you seem to live in Germany, germany@fsfeurope.org might be the best choice for you.
Regards, Georg
Hi Georg,
Thanks for your reply.
This is a tricky situation that would need to be investigated more
deeply to come up with a qualified final ruling.
From reading your mail I got the impression that it is likely they are
viola ting the GPL. Not
because they are selling GPL software -- that is perfectly legal --
but because they
deliberately seem to hide information about the freedoms associated
with the application.
That's the same conclusion I've come to. In the GPL FAQ it says that it isn't allowed to require that anyone who receives the software has to register and buy a copy (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee) But the launcher does exactly this, it requires users to register after the trial period expires. Also, they make a difference between users who've baught a copy and those who didn't: Only the registered users can launch the app through the launcher after the trial period has expired. But doing so, would the software be free any longer? I don't think so.
So it seems likely they are violating the clauses of paragraphs 1 and
3 of the GPL; do they
distribute it with source code? If not, where is their written offer
to do so? Is a copy of
the GPL in the distribution in a reasonably visible location?
The only way to get the sourcecode is over their website. There's a tiny link on the bottom of a subpage with a fontsize smaller than normal. In my opinion, they again try to hide important information. They also display the GPL during installation of the program, so they do at least not violate the GPL in this aspect
There's another thing I've just noticed: The source code of their launcher is not available, yet they've released the whole package under the GPL. This is clearly a violation of the GPL, isn't it?
For general license questions, you can always mail licensing@gnu.org. If you seek assistance by the FSF to deal with potential license
violations, you can always contact us directly.
As you seem to live in Germany, germany@fsfeurope.org might be the
best choice for you.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.
Regards, Tim Kosse
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:09:27PM +0200, Tim Kosse wrote:
But the launcher does exactly this, it requires users to register after the trial period expires.
The crux of the issue is probably whether or not the launcher is a derived work - but to be honest, they would probably willingly release that as GPL: so long as no-one notices it's GPL, it may as well not be.
There's another thing I've just noticed: The source code of their launcher is not available, yet they've released the whole package under the GPL. This is clearly a violation of the GPL, isn't it?
Not really - if it's their launcher, they cannot violate their own licence. Your only hope would be that the combined work is treatable as 'derived', in which case they might be violating the licence by which they received the software from you - then you could take action. But, as I said, they might just release the code for the launcher (it's probably not very advanced) and you still have a problem (people get the software and don't realise it's free).
One option I could think of: if you are the sole copyright holder, you could ditch the GNU GPL and relicence your software under the terms of the Affero GPL. You could then use the provisions of the 'View source' terms to protect part of the app which would advertise the fact that it is free software. I know it's a bizarre way of doing things, since Affero GPL is intended for web apps really, but it's a similar situation in a way.
The problem with that approach is that the Affero GPL is not GPLv2 compatible, which might cause you some issues. However, it is GPLv3 compatible (although, check with FSFE - it might be that the particular clause that allows Affero->GPLv3 migration isn't usable in Europe, it's a similar situation to that which brought about the FLA). It would mean that the people leeching off you would have to either live with the free software advertisement, or fork off your old version. If they have little development capability, then that gives them a real problem. Either way, their version is always GPLv2'd and you can always get at the source (otherwise, that would be a violation...)
Food for thought, anyway ;)
Cheers,
Alex.
so long as no-one notices it's GPL, it may as well not be.
Actually, the user must know what his/her rights are. Giving permission on a legal document and stating otherwise in a user-friendly dialog is hairy at least; I don't think the law allows that (even if I can't imagine right now what's the name of the crime, especially in English.
As for the GPL, I'm pretty sure when someone redistributes other people's work license terms must not be hidden. As a matter of fact, you are not the copyright holder, so you can't dictate the terms. And stating terms incorreclty or in a misleading way ("oh, but the loader referred to itself not to the loaded program. Wasn't it clear? I'm amazed it wasn't. I'll fix it, sooner or later") is definitly some form of misappropriation.
Not really - if it's their launcher, they cannot violate their own licence.
Again, you can claim something about my copyright and then not stand by my words. It's not copyright violation, but it's something else for sure.
/alessandro, not a lawyer
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 23:11, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
so long as no-one notices it's GPL, it may as well not be.
Actually, the user must know what his/her rights are.
Oh, I agree with that, it just sounds like this company is doing a good job of camoflaging the licence well. Tim's description of them makes me think that they are selling this to people who aren't necessarily aware of free software, and they're not advertising the fact that it is free software.
If they brought up the GPL in one of those click-through boxes, I'm sure you couldn't say that they were hiding the licensing terms from the user. I'm equally sure a lot of (most of?) their users would just click straight through it. (I don't know if they do bring it up in a click-through, I'm just using this as an example :)
I would term what they are doing as 'malicious compliance with the GPL' - they're probably doing everything that is legally necessary to comply with the licence, but not complying with the spirit of the licence.
Cheers,
Alex.
It's a weird case and it is sure they do not play fair, but I do not think they violate the GNU GPL license by the fact they use a launcher.
Tim Kosse tim.kosse@gmx.de wrote:
In the GPL FAQ it says that it isn't allowed to require that anyone who receives the software has to register and buy a copy (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee) But the launcher does exactly this, it requires users to register after the trial period expires.
Yes, but the launcher is not the same application, it is a separate (probably proprietary) application that use the fork mechanism to launch a different binary image.
Also, they make a difference between users who've baught a copy and those who didn't: Only the registered users can launch the app through the launcher after the trial period has expired. But doing so, would the software be free any longer? I don't think so.
The same way as a proprietary operating system do in regards of your application, only regular registered Microsoft users can launch your app inside MS Windows. If you can launch your app without the launcher then freedom is only hidden, this is not nice.
The only way to get the sourcecode is over their website. There's a tiny link on the bottom of a subpage with a fontsize smaller than normal. In my opinion, they again try to hide important information. They also display the GPL during installation of the program, so they do at least not violate the GPL in this aspect
How do you get the binary? If they sell it on physical medium and they do not give on the same CD, the source code, or hand with the CD with a written offer for source code they may be violating the GNU GPL.
Do they ship the binary through a web page? And is the source link on the very same web page? If not then, this may be a violation, one that they can easily solve tough.
There's another thing I've just noticed: The source code of their launcher is not available, yet they've released the whole package under the GPL. This is clearly a violation of the GPL, isn't it?
No, sorry, you can bundle GPL and non-GPL software on the same medium (be it a CD, or a zip file). Only derived works need to be released under the same GNU GPL terms.
They show the GNU GPL license as you said, users are informed that it is free software, aren't they?
It is not a nice way to sell free software.
Simo.