Lpc2000

http://www.the-interweb.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/55-Proof- 
that-F4I-violates-the-GPL.html#extended

This is an example of GPL code being discovered recently in a binary,  
as a violation of GPL license.

To my knowledge there is no recorded case of prosecution on the basis  
of GPL violation, ever ?
p/.




On Nov 17, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Charles Manning wrote:

>
> Sorry folk I did not want to start a huge thing. I've spent a lot  
> of time
> trying to understand GPL and what it means, as well as having  
> released large
> bodies of code under GPL and just wanted to make people aware.
>
> There have been huge wars fought on what GPL does and does not  
> mean. There are
> some imprecise grey areas, particularly the static vs dynamic  
> linking thing.
>
> The FAQ is interesting, but it is not legally binding because it is  
> not part
> of the actual GPL (which forms the legal part of the license),  
> though it
> might be legally binding on FSF-owned code because it is a public  
> statement
> of their interpretation. Things are further muddied by various GPL  
> variants
> (eg. the Linux licence) which are based on GPL, have certain  
> degrees of GPL
> compatability, but are no longer GPL because they are modified.
>
> Under copyright law, only the copyright owner can sue for  
> infringement, so
> talk to the copyright holder.
>
> IMHO, the best way to handle GPL code is as follows:
> 1) If you can, stay in the undisputed zone. Stay away from the grey  
> areas.
> 2) If you must go in the grey-zone (eg. dynamic linking) then talk  
> to the
> original author/copyright holder. Get their interpretation. For  
> instance a
> company I work with publicly state that they will not pursue  
> dynamically
> linked usage as infringement, only statically linked usage.
> 3) State your case to the copyright holder and perhaps ask them to  
> relicense
> the code under LGPL. LGPL allows you to use the code with any  
> linking model,
> but you must contribute back fixes/changes to that code. Often  
> people are
> open to relicensing and I have successfully had people relicence  
> their code
> as LGPL before.
> 4) If nothing else succeeds then ask the copyright holder for an  
> alternative
> license. Quite a few bodies of code are released under GPL +  
> alternative
> licencing (perhaps for a fee) to allow use of the code in non-GPL  
> situations.
>
>
>
>
> On Friday 18 November 2005 09:30, Adam Goode wrote:
>> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:55 -0500, Tom Walsh wrote:
>>> Tom Walsh wrote:
>>>> No, read the license discussions on other websites.  If you  
>>>> statically
>>>> link proprietary code to GPL code, then you must release source,  
>>>> if you
>>>> dynamically link at runtime, then you do not have to distribute  
>>>> source
>>>> of your application.  However, you must distribute the object  
>>>> files of
>>>> the proprietary application.
>>>
>>> Correction on my part: LGPL static linking requires object  
>>> modules to be
>>> available from the proprietary app. Not GPL, in either case where  
>>> you
>>> dynamically link at runtime, you can protect your proprietary  
>>> source.
>>> Static linking is where the problems can arise.
>>
>> Actually, according to the FSF, you cannot use GPL code with non-GPL
>> code even while dynamically linking.
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
>>
>>
>> An exception seems to be if you are using the a GPL library where you
>> call into it in a plugin-style form of use.
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- 
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your  
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/dN_tlB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>