Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Chris Jefferson wrote:
> 
> First of all, let me say Hello!
> 
> Also, let me point out that (I hope) I'm not a troll. I've just been
> working on a project with some friends and we are now considering what
> licence to release it under. I'd quite like the GPL, but a number of my
> friends would perfer a "you can read the code, but you can't distribute
> altered versions" style licence.
> 
> The reason for this is that they believe that really bad things can
> happen to GPLed code. 

If thats the case then don't use the GPL, but don't tell me not to.

> Therefore I was hoping someone could tell me, what
> is the worst someone can do?
> 
> Some example thoughts we had..
> 
> 1) Someone could just take our source, remove all copyright notices from
> both the source and displayed when the app is run and put their own on

There have already been a couple of cases of companies distributing
binaries derived from GPL sources which the company claimed was their
own code. A quick disassembly of the code showed otherwise and the
company was publicly humiliated.

Stealing and releasing source code like this is far, far, FAR more
difficult.

> 2) Someone could take our source, make minor alterations to it, and then
> redistribute it without admiting they'd changed it and leaving our
> copyright notices intact (both in source and in the help/about box),
> making it look like we wrote the evil version.

If it was a binary only version, then yes its possible, but again,
a comparison with the real binary would quickly reveal the truth.

You should also note that if you release a binary only product,
a semi skilled cracker/virus writer could still modify that 
binary to do evil things even without the source code.

> Now, we realise that evil people could always just ignore the GPL, that
> isn't a fault of the GPL. But are these two things possible?

Possible yes, but in both cases, the truth is relatively easy
to come by.

> Also, I notice that we must distribute the source in a version such that
> it can be compiled by the user. Does this mean:
> 
> 1) We have to distribute (if asked of course) a copy of the source of
> all libraries, even if they are publicly available (but not installed by
> default)

No.


> 2) We can't write code that depends on VC.net as it's compiler (say, not
> that we have any yet), as people wouldn't then be able to compile it
> themselves without buying VC.net.

Nope, all you have to do is release the source. If it doesn't compile
for people thats their problem.

Erik
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"No Silicon Heaven?  Preposterous!  Where would
all the calculators go?" -- Kryten, Red Dwarf