what's the consequence if someone's product violates GPL ?
The owners of lots of GPL'd works such as the GNU project tend to take an approach of quiet negotiation. They will contact the violators and attempt to inform them about their responsibilities when distributing GPL'd software. They want software to be free for examination and modification and many violations are unintentional.
GPL violations are extremely common, especially with Linux. For example every ip surveillance camera runs Linux/Busybox/etc and I have never seen one that provides source.
For example, programs compiled by gcc (GPL) are not considered derived works and therefore don't need to also hold the GPL license.
In the case of the topic, that appears to be a violation as the game can be considered a derived work. Most violations are handled on a case by case basis if there is legal action due to the nature of "derived work".
If you distribute binary GPL'd software such as the Linux kernel you also have to provide the exact source used to generate those binaries.
Because ip cameras are shipped with binary Linux kernel images they should also provide either the exact source used or an offer of how to get the source.
> For example, programs compiled by gcc (GPL) are not considered derived works
Yep you're right. We probably just misunderstood each other. I was specifically referring to GPL'd components like Linux & Busybox, not any applications that happen to be running on top of them.
These kind of devices can lead to an interesting situation.
Let's say you make Linux-based IP cameras. You accompany every single one you ship with a CD-ROM containing the complete source code. This completely satisfies your GPL obligation with regard to that unit.
As a consumer, I buy one of your cameras. I have no use for the CD-ROM, check my trash collection company website to find out if CD-ROMs go in trash or recycling, and come next collection day it is gone.
A few months later I don't need the camera any more and sell it used on eBay.
The buyer eventually realizes it is a Linux-based camera and wants the source code.
Q: Who, if anyone, is obligated to provide that source code?
A: As far as I can tell, no one!
You are off the hook because you accompanied every binary copy you distributed with the source code. You would only be obligated to third parties if you had elected to distribute the binary without source and accompany it with a written offer to provide the source.
I'm off the hook because my distribution falls under the first sale doctrine, which basically says that if you own a lawfully made particular copy it is not a violation of copyright to sell that particular copy.
I think the correct interpretation is that you are not “distributing” the software at that point. Distributing implies making a copy of the software itself, whereas here you’re strictly transferring your ownership interest in the device and existing binary blobs.
I don’t believe this class of transfer is actually subject to copyright terms.
> These kind of devices can lead to an interesting situation.
> Let's say you make Linux-based IP cameras. You accompany every single one you ship with a CD-ROM containing the complete source code. This completely satisfies your GPL obligation with regard to that unit.
> As a consumer, I buy one of your cameras. I have no use for the CD-ROM, check my trash collection company website to find out if CD-ROMs go in trash or recycling, and come next collection day it is gone.
> A few months later I don't need the camera any more and sell it used on eBay.
> The buyer eventually realizes it is a Linux-based camera and wants the source code.
> Q: Who, if anyone, is obligated to provide that source code?
> A: As far as I can tell, no one!
> You are off the hook because you accompanied every binary copy you distributed with the source code. You would only be obligated to third parties if you had elected to distribute the binary without source and accompany it with a written offer to provide the source.
> I'm off the hook because my distribution falls under the first sale doctrine, which basically says that if you own a lawfully made particular copy it is not a violation of copyright to sell that particular copy.
You must also make the source available upon request under the GPL.
In this case, the kernel source could be unmodified, which could mean that they could just refer you to where they got it.
edit
> Yep you're right. We probably just misunderstood each other. I was specifically referring to GPL'd components like Linux & Busybox, not any applications that happen to be running on top of them.
Yeah misunderstanding there, my apologies! Modifications to the Linux source would require them to also release those under GPL.
In practice, every embedded use of Linux I've seen has included at least some modifications.
The author can sue for damages and receive cash.
I believe there are also violations by vmware and lots of others (I believe ubiquiti?)
That said, there are legitimate ways to distribute GPL code, such as a dual license.
You could write code and license it to company A under one license, and release it under GPL to company B.
company A could have any rights or responsibilities you grant, while company B would have to comply with the distribution restrictions of the GPL.
It's also worth noting that the GPL does not restrict how anyone USES the software, it only restricts how the software is redistributed.