Help on violation of GPL

[john3voltas]

Hi there,
I would like to ask Administrators, Moderators or simple users of this forum, for help on a matter of violation of GPL.
I have repeatedly asked user SAPSTAR for the source files of his tool AutoQMatEnc.
Apparently he made a mistake by choosing the wrong licensing mode for his tool, at least so he says.
Sometime ago he decided to remove the GPL EULA file from his distribution.
He says that now his tool is no longer under the GPL.
I don't agree. I think that at least the old versions are still under GPL.
And all I've been asking him is for old versions source files.
Unfortunately this has made him angry at me :( and in order to keep some peace at his thread I decided to open a new one to ask for help.
You can have a look at it yourselves http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=678478#post678478
Can someone help me to enforce GPL on this subject?
Thanks

[Doom9]

It is highly debateable that merely packing the GPL in a distribution file means that the license applies to the software itself. It could well be that the license is distributed because of a third party tool that is GPL'ed but that ships together with another software (this happens quite often actually).

If you look at section 0:

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

it requires that the copyright holder states the program is distributed under the GPL. Merely putting the license into a distribution file is not enough. Since you seem so sure about this I'm sure you can point out where the author of said software has mentioned that his software may be redistributed under the GPL, as required by section 0 of the GPL for any program for which the license should apply.

[dragongodz]

well time to clear up some rather big misconceptions people have.

Since you seem so sure about this I'm sure you can point out where the author of said software has mentioned that his software may be redistributed under the GPL, as required by section 0 of the GPL for any program for which the license should apply.
i can easily point out where SAPSTAR says he is using LGPL code, in the first post of that thread. we have
- MPEG2 Encoder using a part of libavcodec
libavcodecs mpeg2 is covered(can be compiled) as LGPL rather than GPL so lets work with just that for now.

some quotes from the other thread and i will reply to them.

posted by Mean -
It seems to be libavcodec based ( and that you are linking statically to it)
posted by SAPSTAR -
I even used a regular libavcodec
these plus putting the GPL text file in the archive are what initially raised the whole licensing issue SAPSTAR and NOT me. you used licensed source pure and simple and Mean asked about the source code.

ok so we have a normal libavcodec being statically linked. lets see what the LGPL says about this
a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes
were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2
above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the
complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code
and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to
produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is
understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the
modified definitions.)
so basically anyone that you allow to access the binary must also be able to get the object files and/or source code so they recompile themselves if wished. whether this be through having them available at the same site or another or by request etc etc etc. is up to you.

so whats SAPSTARs opinion on this simple thing to do ?
- I don't plan to release the sources until a certain time
STOP ASKING FOR THE SOURCES I'M NOT TO RELEASE THEM NOW !!!!
I MAY RELEASE THE SOURCES ONE DAY, BUT NOBODY WILL NEVER OBLIGE ME TO DO SO !!!! ONCE AGAIN : SUBJECT CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!
hate to break it to you sport but either stop using licensed source code or stop distributing the binary or follow the license and release the object files and/or source code. you ARE obliged to do so as is and saying "subject closed" wont change it.

there IS however another option. dont link statically to the library. that is use it as a dll just as other programs have and do. example, when this issue was raised with QuEnc Nic decided to use the dll for a few releases because he didnt want the source to QuEnc released right away, and yes Nic who is both a moderator and a well respected member of this forum was corrected on what to do and he complied right away. another example is Freeenc, again it uses the dll so no object files or source code needs to be released.

now to address some of the other things in that thread.
john3voltas was pretty polite in his requests/posts and what did he get back ? "no more asking" and "apparently john3voltas can't read english either". insults were not needed.

Cut him some slack guys.
lets be clear about this. SAPSTAR has been cut more slack than most people, including Nic. if you think a few people trying to point out the license issues and asking for him to follow them is being hard on him then you dont know anything about the happenings of the past. look and you will see neither Mean nor i have pushed it as we easily could have. as for john3voltas, his biggest "crime" is getting which license this falls under wrong.
for a good read on how these things can go have a nice long read here(this is GPL but it should show you how easy SAPSTAR really has had it)
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=74951

and here is a link to the LGPL for those wanting to read that :)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

[danpos]

@All

I think that with last SAPSTAR's post: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=678563&postcount=90 that this thread became senseless, because we all no more will listen to speak about AQE, since SAPSTAR stopped the development and distribution of encoder for the public.

Cheers,

[john3voltas]

Hello there,
Thank you all for your oppinions most specially for dragongodz very detailed explanation.
Yes, the reason why I thought about GPL violation since the begining was SAPSTARS's sentence "MPEG2 Encoder using a part of libavcodec".
That's why I asked for the sources and only after maybe 3 times I asked I stoped there to come to this thread.
Unfortunately it is my knowledge that SAPSTAR has finally decided to go by the license.
Sadly it doesn't mean he published the sources but it means he has stoped development/distribution.
Sad thing but fair enough.
So I see no reason for keep on going with this thread because in the end I might not have get to see the sources but because GPL was rightly enforced.
Again, thank you all for your oppinions.

[Doom9]

@dragongodz: sometimes you really want to be blind to the truth. libavcodec is LGPL. Not being the copyright holder and not having many any modifications to the libavcodec source, SAPSTAR has no legal right to change the license from LGPL to GPL even only for his distribution.

these plus putting the GPL text file in the archiveDid you actually READ what I quoted? You have to state "this software is released under the GPL" for the license to apply! He didn't. Perhaps you meant to and perhaps he didn't.. the point it he didn't do what is required for his program to be covered by the GPL, hence it does not apply. Period!

The LGPL is OT here.. it's about a non existing GPL violation. I consider it slander to accuse something if you didn't even bother reading up first. It's just as bad to violate the license than it is wrongfully accusing somebody of violation.

As far as the LGPL angle goes I have already spoken to SAPSTAR privately so hopefully we can work that out soon.

And there's an old saying: c'est le ton qui fait la musique. I only see people demanding.. I don't see anybody wanting to help out with the program.. It's not the first time I'm witnessing such a problem and it always goes like this:
person X comes along and starts badgering the author. Normally getting the point across just doesn't work and instead of backing off and privately asking a moderator or admin for help (who have some experience in that area) it keeps going on, other people jump into the breach and the badgering gets more intense.. whatever will to reason on part of the developer will quickly go out the window.. and we all react pretty much the same if we're under that amount of pressure.. human beings have a natural defense reflex from the dark ages.. it's usually not about reason but survival.

Even those companies selling routers that use iptables but don't release their work under the GPL.. the authors try to resolve that amicably, not in a badgering kind of way. Legal injunctions are the last resort and it usually works out as future versions being released in a license compliant way.. I have yet to see a case where it was backdated and the sources for any old version was also released.. if this doesn't even happen in cases where money involved, it's completely unreasonable to ask for this in a case of a free software. A guarantee that at day X in the not so far future the work will be license compliant will suffice (provided that the author stick to his words). Only if he/she doesn't and the deadline elapses is it time to take out the big guns.

[dragongodz]

dragongodz: sometimes you really want to be blind to the truth. libavcodec is LGPL.
may i humbly suggest mate that you put your glasses on and reread what i typed before having a shot at me ? let me help you
i can easily point out where SAPSTAR says he is using LGPL code,
libavcodecs mpeg2 is covered(can be compiled) as LGPL rather than GPL so lets work with just that for now.

now on to
The LGPL is OT here.. it's about a non existing GPL violation. I consider it slander to accuse something if you didn't even bother reading up first. It's just as bad to violate the license than it is wrongfully accusing somebody of violation.
sorry but being OT is bull. i was infact correcting john3voltas that it was NOT a GPL violation and stating ways SAPSTAR could comply with the LGPL which is the really relevant license. this was meant to try and help SAPSTAR aswell since he didnt want to release the source code right away but obviously i needent have bothered to try if this is the response i get. so who is slandering whom ?

[Koepi]

Please calm down guys. Let's not get into childish accusition-games here. Let's talk about the issue like adults usually do.

I hope in a few hours/days we can enjoy a virtual beer together and laugh about this thing.

Thank you,

Regards
Koepi