Need help with possible GPL violation

[Simo Sorce]

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 at 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.

-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l. - http://www.xsec.it
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
mobile: +39 329 328 7702
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030403/765a41a4/attachment.sig>