GPL violations for advertising purposes
github.com
github.com
Emby markets itself as an open source competitor to Plex, however the binaries they distribute are not reproducible using the code published in the repository. Despite multiple requests for the build scripts for the dotnet core version of Emby, the core developer Luke states "we are currently not publishing the build process for it, but don't worry, we will be doing .net core-based packages for all of the popular distros."[0]
The GPL requires the release of not just source code, but build scripts and supporting materials, outlined here in the SFLC's "A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance", sections 3.3, 3.4, 4.2.3. [1]
The core development team has been made aware of this, but is still refusing to make the build scripts available for the currently distributed version of Emby. Neither have they relicensed the project, despite all current contributions being covered under a CLA. This constitutes a willful and deliberate violation of the GPLv2.
[0] https://emby.media/community/index.php?/topic/51614-instruct...
[1] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-gu...
Which, so long as they provide downstream with the permissions in the open source license they offer, is correct. Whether they are violating upstream open source licenses is an almost entirely separate concern, relevant only in that it could conceivably lose them the right to continue to offer their software at all, under open source or other terms.
From the SFLC Guide:
"The Corresponding Source definition – both in GPLv2 and GPLv3 – has not been typically read to include the compiler itself, but rather things like makefiles, build scripts, and packaging scripts."
These are not provided with the source code, and they claim the distributed binaries are licensed under the GPL. How is this correct if they do not satisfy the 4 freedoms?
If the upstream copyright holders feel there is a violation worth pursuing, then they have venues to which to escalate if an issue filed with the project is inadequate to resolve the problem.
They distribute packages for Linux distro's, where the GPL is listed as the license for the package, instead they should be listed as custom or proprietary.
No, you are confused about the meaning of the license label: that's the terms they are offering downstream (e.g., what permissions, and with what conditions, people getting the package from them have), not the terms they are bound by. If upstream is proprietary, but the distributor has purchased the right to offer GPL downstream, GPL is the correct label. If upstream is permissive open source, and the distributor has decided to only offer GPL downstream, GPL is the correct label. If the distributor is the sole copyright holder and bound by nothing, and has decided to offer GPL downstream, GPL is the correct label. If upstream is offered to the public under the GPL, but the distributor has a special deal for an exemption from a particular term with the upstream distributor, but is still offering GPL downstream, GPL is the correct label.
While the copyleft nature of the GPL is that people offering it to the public will often be obligated to particular upstream partners to also observe its restriction, upstream and downstream licensing are different things, and the label on a package is the downstream offer, not the upstream commitment. As a recipient, their obligation to you is to honor the offer they have made to you, which is simply that you may distribute under the conditions in the GPL.