Need help with possible GPL violation

[Alex Hudson]

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.