Re: [tlug] GPL non-sense

[Joe Larabell <fred62@example.com>]

> OK sure easy enough.  What they want to do though is embed their
> trademark pretty deeply.  If they (or anyone) modify the graphics
> rendering to include their trademark, suddenly ...
>
> I can get their binary but can't redistribute it?  Wait it was based
> on my gpl3 code.

But you still have your original GPLed code. Just distribute that.

I can imagine a simpler case that could cause a conflict. If IBM were to 
release a GPLed C function whose sole purpose was to render the IBM logo 
in graphic form you probably couldn't distribute a binary including that 
function as part of a derivative product without risking a trademark 
problem. In that case, just don't distribute their binary. With or without 
the source, if their trademark is embedded in the product, you might not 
be able to distribute their binary in any form.

But that has no bearing on whether you can still distribute your original 
version. If it bugs you that you will not be able to distribute the fruits 
of your work, don't do the work. If they're paying you to embed their logo
into your code, then technically the modifications belong to them. Your 
GPL license prohibits them from distributing their own binaries without 
the complete source (including the embedded logo) and anyone who had the 
source could modify the source to remove the logos or just use the stuff 
privately without distributing it. It does seem against the principle of 
the license to block redistribution by embedding a trademark trap (which 
is what it sounds like to me) but I've never heard of a case where that's 
been tested in court. Sounds like it would be an interesting trial.

> I can get the source but I can't distribute the resulting binary.

There's an out. If the logo is rendered graphically but embedded as code, 
you might be able to distribute the source *instead* of the binary.

> I can modify the graphics engine but I have to distribute my "code
> needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
> work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
> control those activities."

You'd have to do that even if there were no embedded logos. It's part of 
the rules for distributing GPL-based binaries (well... you wouldn't have 
to modify the graphics engine but you would still have to supply the build 
scripts necessary to compile the binary -- which is what that clause is 
referring to).

> I have a higher burden than Red Hat or any one who acts like them. I 
> can't redistribute their binary and I don't think I can redistribute the 
> src. If I work really hard, I may be able to convert their source into 
> something that can be used but that really seems like a bug to me.

Hmmm... Maybe I'm missing something. If their product is based on your 
GPLed source, they have to release the entire source to comply with the 
GPL license. If they're embedding something like their company name or a 
slogan into the source itself (as comments or as variable names) and they 
release that under the GPL, I don't think they can later claim trademark 
violation. If they're trying to game the license that way, I'd say do the 
work twice... release your own version without the embedded cruft. That 
will serve them right and, since it's all GPL, you're on firm ground.

If the embedded trademark is something generated at runtime, like a button 
with their name or slogan in the corner of the window, you should be able 
to distribute the source because their trademark doesn't show up unless 
you compile said source.

> Sure if it's just replacing a few images I will have no trouble.  If
> they decide to really go after it and modify the graphics rendering
> then for all practical purposes their changes will be useless to me.

And that's a problem how? If it's based on your source you should still 
have your original version. If they're paying you to produce a version 
that has an embedded trademark (or doing the work themselves), that 
version is pretty much useless to anyone but them. That doesn't stop you 
from releasing a version that's not crippled in the same way. As long as 
they offer the source, it probably meets the letter of the license, even 
though it falls short of meeting the four freedoms of free software (ie: 
the freedom for the recipient to re-distribute the program himself).

> I guess GPL3 is not always the right choice but I don't know a better
> one.

I doubt any of the other OSS licenses would prevent them from gaming the 
system in a similar way. In fact, with most of the other licenses they 
could just use your source, produce encumbered binaries, and never offer 
their mods to the public at all. At least under the GPL, someone could 
obtain and compile a copy of the encumbered product for their own use, 
right? If, for example, you drew a picture of Mickey Mouse and hung it on 
your own wall at home -- could Disney come after you for that? I doubt it.

But... IANAL and IDEPTPOOT...

---
Joseph L (Joe) Larabell            Never fight with a dragon
http://larabell.org/                    for thou art crunchy
http://thelemicleague.org/        and goest well with cheese.