Examining an attack on the GPL [LWN.net]

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 20:57 UTC (Mon) by jre (subscriber, #2807)
Parent article: Examining an attack on the GPL

I respect and trust Prof. Moglen's opinions on the GPL. But I still do not understand how (or if) he has answered Mr. Henry's central point.
That point, if I understand it, is that an unwitting licensor would lose his right to sue for infringement, once the code has gone out into the world.
So, to make a hypothetical:
I'm running a big development project. One of my software engineers incorporates a bunch of GPL'ed code into my product without my knowledge. My QA systems are too pathetically weak to detect the inclusion (not that any real company would ever claim such a thing). I fix the problem as soon as I discover it, but it's too late. Millions of copies have been made, and I am powerless to take action against the copiers, because of the GPL. No one can sue me, since the GPL is not a contract, but that is cold comfort -- since it is a license, I cannot retrieve my now-GPL'ed product.
I agree that this is far-fetched, but since that seems to be the nightmare scenario proposed, I'd like to know why it could not happen.

(Log in to post comments)

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 21:03 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

My understanding is this: if you release your product under the "Extra-Nasty Proprietary License" (ENPL), that product is, indeed, licensed under the ENPL. The fact that you used a bunch of GPL-licensed code to create your product does not change the fact that your product is ENPL-licensed. You are guilty of copyright infringement, but that has not changed the licensing of your code.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 21:15 UTC (Mon) by jre (subscriber, #2807) [Link]

Yup.
After I posted, I thought about it a little more.
You're right -- the nightmare scenario could only come about if some court, somewhere, were to hold that mere inclusion of GPL'ed code, with or without intent to license under the GPL, would cause the GPL to apply. That's silly.
Now, if some company were to claim that its product, distributed with prominent GPL notices plastered all over it, had been unwittingly released in this manner, that would be even sillier!

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 8:09 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

Exactly. If you include GPL code in your application, it does not follow that your application is automatically also under GPL.

It *does* follow that either a) You reach some agreement with the copyrigth-holder(s) of the GPL-code in question to license it to you on other terms or b) You release your code also under the GPL or c) You do none of the two above, and are then infringing on the copyrigth of those writing the GPL-code.<p>

If you do c, you migth be forced to pay damages to the people owning the code. That's true for all code you illegally include and nothing special for GPL. You will however in such a scenario NOT be forced to relicense your code under GPL.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 27, 2003 3:14 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]

> It *does* follow that either
> a) You reach some agreement with the copyrigth-holder(s) of the GPL-code
> in question to license it to you on other terms or
> b) You release your code also under the GPL or
> c) You do none of the two above, and are then infringing on the copyrigth
> of those writing the GPL-code.

b) ii) You satisfy the GPL by not redistributing the GPL code (i.e. you include it in a modified program that you never distribute)

The GPL only affects derived works if you then redistribute them to others. There are plenty of parties modifying GPL works and never redistributing them under any license terms; this is a perfectly valid, if far less visible, use of the work.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 27, 2003 6:43 UTC (Thu) by vgough (subscriber, #2781) [Link]

How are damages determined?

I've heard people (literally - two anti-GPL people at a coffee shop)
throwing out theories that because people were giving their code away for
free, that there were little or no damages.

But, my choice of releasing code under certain terms (the GPL) should in
no way prejudice my ability to license the very same code for money to
another licensee. So how are damages figured for copyright work which
has not been previously sold or licensed for profit?

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 27, 2003 8:08 UTC (Thu) by gleef (guest, #1004) [Link]

Damages would be hard to determine. If you have an established "dual license" business model (eg. Cygnus, Trolltech), you can make some case at it. You can probably come up with some economic or business value to the code copying, by bringing in expert witnesses. This is further complicated by the fact that you really can't claim significant damages in the US unless you've registered your copyright with the Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, something many Free Software developers don't bother with.

The big stick, from what I've seen in terms of FSF enforcement of the GPL, is the threat of an injunction. If you can show that a person is likely distributing your work in violation of your copyrights, it's fairly easy to get an injunction forcing them to stop distribution until all the issues get ironed out (and permanently, if they can be proved to be distributing it and nothing gets ironed out). Since, in most cases the alleged infringer is a commercial entity who is depending on this product for revenue, such an injunction would be very very costly.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Dec 4, 2003 11:43 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Bearing in mind most Free Software developers are not based in the US, why should they register with the US Copyright Office?

I would EXPECT, as a matter of FAIRNESS, that if I sued an American company in America, that the lack of copyright registration would be irrelevant seeing as (a) I wrote my code in the UK and it's covered by UK copyrights, and (b) the Berne Convention applies.

I don't know exactly how it works, but under the convention I should have the ability to sue anyone, anywhere, for copyright violation and have my Berne rights enforced.

If necessary, I might have to register my copyright with the Copyright Office before suing, but no time limits should be applicable to that registration, seeing as if that American company didn't transact business in the UK I would have no means of redress should I rely on the UK courts.

Cheers,
Wol

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Dec 5, 2003 0:28 UTC (Fri) by eread (guest, #1918) [Link]

I have studied Australian Copyright Law (though I wouldn't ever consider myself an expert - IANAL) and from my reading of if someone has copyright with respect to a given work, then Australian laws will uphold that.

In some provisions, the person must be a "qualified person" for the provision to take effect. But in most general provisions, as far as I can see, Australian courts will respect and uphold your copyright in Australia, even if the copyright comes from an overseas country (probably signaturies to the Berne Convention.

I hope this is somewhat accurate.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Dec 5, 2003 0:29 UTC (Fri) by eread (guest, #1918) [Link]

A Qualified person being one who is an Australian, or who created the work in Australia.

I don't think one need be an "expert in the field" like some patent law.

Determining Damages

Posted Dec 4, 2003 17:11 UTC (Thu) by HalfMoon (guest, #3211) [Link]

How are damages determined?

I'll assume you don't mean punitive damages, but just ones based on some rational economic basis.

One ceiling would be all the revenue associated with the product which was doing the copyright infringement. That'd need to be fair math, not the kind RIAA companies use with musicians, so if the product integrates hardware and software, the hardware portion of the revenue WOULD be counted.

Another ceiling would be the engineering effort needed to re-invent, re-implement, re-stabilize the relevant code. Clean-room. That could easily be much more than the revenue from the particular infringing product ...

Whatever number is used would be modified in at least two ways. One would be reducing the number; it may be hard to argue that all the revenue came from unfair competition based on copyright infringement. Another would be increasing it, as in "treble damages" for certain kinds of behavior or as in accounting for some market position acquired by fraud. (OK, that last may expect too much real "justice" out of most of today's "justice systems", sorry!)

IANAL, but I certainly know that these numbers can be arrived at in ways that an unbiased third party would agree reflect the "value" of the infringement to the party doing the infringing.

Remember, if the original author had wanted nothing back, they'd have used the BSD license. But that's not what they wanted ... they chose a license which limited the scope for proprietary value-add. So clearly, every dollar (or euro, etc) associated with that product which wasn't proprietary value-add, or a going-rate service, came from the infringement. There's a damage valuation.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 21:24 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

But could not the original licensor of the included GPL code force you to open up all the ENPL-licensed code which you published to date under the GPL instead? (since the code "published to date" has caused factual damage to the GPL author)

My understanding was that by using GPL'd code, you agree to the license terms, one of which is that you make your additional code available under GPL terms also.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 22:00 UTC (Mon) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144) [Link]

This was explained above: I can't "force" you to release your code. If you insist on copying and distributing derivative works of my copyrighted, GPL'd code, I can try to get a court make you 1) pay me damages, and/or 2) stop.

Note that this is also what would happen if I started copying and resdistributing derived copies of MS Windows in a way that MS, as copyright holder, didn't allow.

On the other hand, some companies might decide "fuck it, his GPL'd code is more valuable to us that our modifications are. Let's release the whole thing as GPL to satisfy his terms." Note that MS doesn't offer such a solution.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 22:46 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

I respectfully disagree, after reading the license: There is nothing in the GPL that restricts the original licensor of a piece of code to 1) and 2). Yes, paragraph 4 or the GPL says that your rights to someone else's code under the GPL will be automatically terminated if you in non-compliance with the GPL.

But, it does not speak about what happens about GPL'd code that you have knowingly incorporated and distributed for some time.

One may very well interpret GPL Sect. 2b and Sect. 6 together with the implicit acceptance clause of Sect. 5 of the GPL as your acceptance to make available your already distributed modified product under the terms of the GPL of the original licensor.

I hate to side with the writer of the original inflammatory press release on that one - but the language of the GPL could be interpreted that way, and nothing which I see prevents an author of GPL'd code to demand compliance from a licensee with regard to already released code. But, IANAL.

And yes, Mr Henry is completely wrong in that anyone could force the opening of the code, IMHO. But the original GPL licensor might.

The message is simply, if you do not want to make your code available, don't use GPL'd code. No big deal, and especially nothing viral here.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:09 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Well, placing your infringing code under the GPL is an option. It's one of the ways you can remedy an infringement. The other ways are to cease infringing by ceasing distribution of the GPL code, or to negotiate a separate license with the copyright holder(s).

And then, you may have some damages as a result of the infringement.

It seems very unlikely that a judge would actually force someone to GPL their code if that someone was willing to take one of the other paths to remedy infringement.

Bruce

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:19 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

I agree with you regarding the likelihood: It's rather unlikely that a GPL author could force Evil Software Company X's infringing code into the open.

But, Mr Henry is evidently a lawyer. There is nothing factual in the GPL which _prevents_ a GPL copyright holder (e.g. FSF) from suing for exactly that, instead of other damages. The judge's decision is another matter, but technically it's not predetermined.

And, who knows what side circumstances might apply that render the payment of damages, negotiating a separate agreement etc. impractical in a given case.

Yet again, just to make sure: There is nothing viral about this anyway. Whoever falls for this virus has to do so maliciously, as for the famous text virus.
("I am a virus. Please copy me (by hand!) to every email address in your address book. Thank you very much.")

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 2:11 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

There is nothing specific in the GPL about that. People can sue
for just about any reason and just about any result is possible.

In a lawsuit with two non-free programs it is completely
possible that instead of monetary damages the winner might be
granted the copyright interests in the illegally distributed
program which were owned by the loser.

There are lots of ways to settle and there are lots of ways for
a judge or jury to award damages.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 6:00 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

It's also possible that the judge could repeal the law of gravity or legislate Pi equal to 3.0 . But not likely. There are appeals courts to handle much smaller breaches than that.

Bruce

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 14:48 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

Err ... white flag. I am almost ready to declare defeat, and do so here re: also the remainder of my comments in this thread.

I guess what I am trying to say is this:

I can perfectly see how a lawyer could read the GPL to be intended to force you to open your infringing code after the fact. Pars 2b, 6, together with 5 allow a lawyer to construe such an argument before a court with great ease. Whether it holds up is another matter, but the wording (esp of par. 5) sounds as if it were preparing the ground for such an outcome.

Most legal professionals are not Eben Moglen; most of them probably even believe in the legality/enforceability of "click-to-accept" after-purchase shrink-wrap licenses, after all; and if need be, they would probably even sue on behalf of a GPL client to force someone else to open their code, either; as long as it pays.

My conclusion from all this is that if the GPL _does not_ intend to force anyone to open up infringing code after the fact (which it evidently does not, I know!), it should best say so explicitly; that would immediately end confusion such as the above press-release.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Dec 4, 2003 11:47 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

"There is nothing factual in the GPL which _prevents_ a GPL copyright holder (e.g. FSF) from suing for exactly that, instead of other damages."

And don't forget. Replace FSF with IBM, and assume that the software in question is OpenServer, and/or UnixWare, and you have EXACTLY that scenario.

IBM *HAS* sued for copyright infringement, and HAS asked the judge to place those two programs under the GPL should any infringement be found to have occurred!

Cheers,
Wol

Please tell me where IBM makes that claim

Posted Dec 4, 2003 14:12 UTC (Thu) by brokeninside (guest, #8722) [Link]

I am aware that IBM is suing the SCO Group (TSG) for copyright infringement over TSG's continued distribution of the Linux kernel which contains IBM copyrighted code.

And I am aware of IBM suing TSG for infringement of IBM owned patents in pretty much the entire product portfolio purchased from SCO. As part of this counterclaim, IBM is asking that TSG be prohibited from distributing OpenServer, UnixWare, etc.

I am not aware of any IBM counterclaims that are suing for release of TSG proprietary sofware purchased from SCO under the GPL.

As most of the documents for the case can be found at Groklaw and/or IBMSCOWeThey, would you please point me to where in IBM's counterclaims against TSG that IBM is suing for TSG proprietary code to be released under the GPL?

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:13 UTC (Mon) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144) [Link]

Again, Eben Moglen explained this above. The GPL is a license (not a contract). When it comes to violating a license that allows copying or distributing a copyrighted work, the copyright holder has legal recourse to ask a judge for damages or to stop the infringement. (If the violator abides by the GPL -- by, in this case, releasing the code in their derived work -- then there is no longer any license violation.)

This isn't in the GPL itself. This is how license violations of copyrighted materials are handled by US courts.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:24 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

Hm. I see that point more clearly now.

Still paragraph 5 is rather threatening in combination with 2a and 6 (and rightfully so). Why the appropriate "damages" should not be the forced opening of infringing code in a given case escapes me.

But, I've posted too much already! Thanks for the answers!

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 0:18 UTC (Tue) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]

Is there some reason why a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals GPL code for use in its proprietary product is more likely to have to lose a proprietary interest in their own contribution than a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals code with some other license? For concreteness, say Rogue Wave code is somehow found in their product and they never bought a Rogue Wave license. Is the worry that "some judge" is likely to be much more punitive in the GPL stealing case?

If the point here is that GPL should actually be treated like a real license then I'm sure the FSF and others are in favor of that concern.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 1:22 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

No 100 % compelling reason. BUT, one might argue that the nature of GPL makes the
argument much much easier to force code opening as a way of remedying damages. No
need to motivate it first ... it's already right there.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 26, 2003 16:29 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]

What the company with proprietary code and a court would care about is the overall monetary value of any awarded damages. Courts don't work like interior decorators and just award damages willy-nilly based on a coordinating "theme".

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 30, 2003 12:04 UTC (Sun) by IkeTo (subscriber, #2122) [Link]

Is there some reason why a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals GPL code for use in its proprietary product is more likely to have to lose a proprietary interest in their own contribution than a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals code with some other license?

No. But that's an inappropriate comparison. You won't normally see the proprietary code lying there in web sites waiting for you to download without you signing an agreement, contract, whatever.

There are reasons why proprietary software writers would object GPL, and it is perfectly legitimate: GPL is written to crush them. While I'm perfectly for GPL and 100% against proprietary software, I think GPL software writers still have an obligation to remind people from falling into the trap and become forced to abandon their projects (or GPL their code). I mean, while the language of GPL is as clear as crystal, and while all the rules for using the software is clearly written there, we still shouldn't try misleading proprietary writers to believe that GPL is very safe to use for their project--and only after their projects started, tell them that they are violating the license and force them to stop. It's better to get them warned at the beginning.

If GPL wins over proprietary software, I'd much rather it win by a fair competition, rather than by misinformation by software writers.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 11:05 UTC (Tue) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link]

> The GPL is a license (not a contract).

Is there a difference between a license and a contract in US laws?

In my own country, the Netherlands, the law doesn't speaks about licenses and
contracts. Instead, it speaks about agreements between two parties and a
license or contract is just a proof of an agreement, not the agreement itself. (I.e.
an oral agreement can has the same legal status as a written contract, if you can
prove it).

Because of that, a license which you find inside packaged software and you have
automatically agreed to by opening the package is void; there is no proof the one
who opened the package agreed to it.

On the other hand, someone who copies GPL software must have clearly read
the license, because otherwise he is not allowed to copy. In this case, the license
is a proof of an agreement between two parties.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 16:28 UTC (Tue) by kay (subscriber, #1362) [Link]

> Because of that, a license which you find inside packaged software and you have
> automatically agreed to by opening the package is void; there is no proof the one
> who opened the package agreed to it.

this void only the "accept by open", so you can return the software if you dont agree with the licence inside.

if you use the software, the licence is accepted.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 26, 2003 9:13 UTC (Wed) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link]

You do not need a license to use software, just like you do not need a license to read a
book. You do need a license to install it, because that is copying, which you are only
allowed to do with permission from the author.

license vs contract

Posted Nov 28, 2003 17:22 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

In my own country, the Netherlands, the law doesn't speaks about licenses and contracts. Instead, it speaks about agreements between two parties and a license or contract is just a proof of an agreement, not the agreement itself.

Then you're just translating to English wrong. In English, "license" isn't a document or evidence of something -- it's a synonym for "permission." It is, by the way, very common to contract with someone to give you a license in exchange for something else (e.g. money).

It's hard for me to believe that Dutch copyright, patent, and other law doesn't have some word that means "license" in this way.

FYI, in American law, "contract" and "agreement" are synonyms and there is no good word for the proof of the contract. It's just called "documentation of the contract," or "evidence of the contract," or something like that.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 8:19 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

It is not at all significant to read the GPL to deal with this situation.
In this situation, you've infringed on the original owner's copyright by
virtue of using it without a license (since you didn't accept the GPL,
and may not have actually realized you were offered the GPL). At this
point, the original owner can offer you any license (assuming the
original owner isn't under any particular obligations); this doesn't mean
you have to accept the license. Furthermore, there's no reason the owner
couldn't offer you the GPL at this point, having never done anything with
the GPL previously. If you refuse any license, it falls to the court to
determine a penalty, based on copyright law and not on the terms of any
license you might be offered, before or after the infringement.

In fact, there's no particular reason that, if Microsoft found that you
had violated the commercial licensing terms of some commercial code that
they no longer cared much about, they couldn't at that point offer you
the GPL, putting you in exactly the situation of having incorporated
GPLed code (and, if you didn't accept the GPL, there's no reason they'd
have to offer it to anyone else, either).

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:45 UTC (Mon) by titousensei (guest, #4144) [Link]

There're a few things that are generally interpreted the wrong way regarding GPLed code inclusion.

1) It's actually *not* different from the inclusion of code licensed differently. Say one of my coders managed to get the source code of the product from another company and includes it in our product. The rest of your scenario is the same. If the other company finds out, we're all in big trouble, and that's called copyright infringement too, like for the GPL. Generally the case is settled by paying a lot of money to whomever owns the rights. The fact that GPLed code is easier to come by than, most of the time just by downloading it, doesn't change the fact that somebody *owns* the rights for this code. Again, if you already distributed the product to a bunch of people and the copyright owner doesn't want to settle the case, you're in trouble.

2) as somebody else pointed out, releasing an application with any license when GPLed code is included doesn't mean the application becomes GPLed, nor that the GPLed code changes license. It only means the license for the whole product is invalid and it cannot be distributed until the issue is fixed: either by removing the GPLed code, or by re-licensing the product to GPL-compatible license, or by having the copyright-owners of the GPLed relicense their code to something else (I'm sure a lot of money can convince them to do so in this case too, but sometimes you'll need to talk to many different persons). But the application you released under an invalid license by itself: you have to explicitly release it under the GPL for it to become GPLed entirely. (NB: one thing you cannot do is explicitly release under the GPL, then change your mind)

3) Just because you GLP your code doesn't mean you must let anybody download it. It means that the people *buying* the application must be given the source code too for free, and only them. Example: Sony did a release of the gcc for their PS2 development kit (with PS2 chips specific stuff in it) that's only distributed to official developers. Those developers have the source code, but they won't distribute it (I'm pretty sure that by contract they will loose their right to produce PS2 games if they distribute it). That's allowed.

So, the GPL is just another license that protects the copyrights like other licenses, with one additionnal way to do the right thing, that is GPL your own code. But it's not mandatory.

So, to summarize, the GPL "looks" problematic because:
- the code can be downloaded easily, but you cannot use it in a proprietary product
- the only visible way out is to GPL your own code, but the usual copyright settlements are also possible
- GPL looks like public domain code, but it's not: you don't have to give for free you source code to anyone who asks for it, you still own your code!

Actually it's not more problematic than other proprietary licenses. In GPL, money is not the only way to settle things, and that's probably why people are freaking out.

Best,
EG

PS: if people get your GPLed code, they can release your own product and compete against you, right?. But you can do that too, right? Because they must do their release under GPL too! Right!

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 0:05 UTC (Tue) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144) [Link]

===Sony did a release of the gcc for their PS2 development kit (with PS2 chips specific stuff in it) that's only distributed to official developers. Those developers have the source code, but they won't distribute it (I'm pretty sure that by contract they will loose their right to produce PS2 games if they distribute it). That's allowed.===

I'm pretty sure that what you've just described is not allowed...? Once you have GPL'd code, you can copy and redistribute it under the GPL, and no additional requirments may be placed on you for it to be GPL. That means that I could redistribute Sony's code.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 2:15 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

I think you are correct. Any additional restrictions, even if they
aren't in the text of the license, are not allowed. Ask the FSF if you
want to know for sure. They have a GPL compliance address which I used
recently: license-violation at gnu dot org.

Grey Areas

Posted Nov 25, 2003 3:57 UTC (Tue) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link]

There's a few grey areas here; consult the original author and the FSF for details on what Sony could or couldn't do in a case like this.

Stallman himself--if I recall correctly--used to give people private GCC betas with the understanding that anybody who released an private beta probably wasn't going to be on the list next time around.

Although the core of the GPL is rooted deep in traditional copyright law, the edges are sometimes a little fuzzy. When in doubt, talk to the original maintainer and your lawyers. Saying "please" is good policy.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 7:55 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

At a guess, PS2 developers are probably dealing with multiple things
here. The GPL gives them the right to distribute the gcc extension. But
the GPL has nothing to say about trademarks, and PS2 developers, by and
large, are hoping to continue to be licensed to release "games for the
PS2(tm)", and so they have to keep Sony happy. The thing in this case is
that you're not just a user of the software, but you're also getting
other rights from Sony which are important not for your use of the
software, but for your end goal.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 13:24 UTC (Tue) by Liefting (subscriber, #8466) [Link]

Sue your developer. He's the one who got paid for *programming* something, but instead *copied* the works of somebody else, pretending it was his own.

Where I work the policy is clear: you have to go through a one-day seminar on OSS and Licensing to make sure you understand the issues and consequences if you want to work with OSS in general. And there is a rigorous review process (including lawyers) if you decide to either use OSS for/with/in/bundled with/linked to a proprietary product, or if you decide to make a proprietary product open source.