Plugin foo_dsp_src violates copyright Options

[m3ga]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the author and copyright owner of software known as "Secret Rabbit Code" which is released
under the terms of the GNU General Public License.

On Monday August 8th 2005, I was made aware of a web site:

http://pelit.koillismaa.fi/plugins/dsp.php

which contains a php redirect link

http://pelit.koillismaa.fi/plugins/redir.php?id=494

which redirects to :

http://sbougribate.free.fr/Files/Foobar2000/foo_dsp_src.zip

which offers a binary derived from Secret Rabbit Code in direct violation of the GNU GPL [0].

I would like the people responsible for the above websites to do the following:

Free.fr (sbougribate.free.fr / Proxad.net):
Please remove the offending binary immediately. If the person who posted the binary
wishes to comply with the GNU GPL they can contact me at the email address listed
on the Secret Rabbit Code web page.

koillismaa.fi:
Please get the owner of the page:
http://pelit.koillismaa.fi/plugins/dsp.php
to remove the link to the binary as soons as possible and replace it with a statement that
the link was removed because of copyright violation.

I look forward to your swift reponse to this copyright violation.

Regards,
Erik

[PatchWorKs]

From FSF's Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL:

Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
    It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.

    If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.

    If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.

Hope it helps.

[rjamorim]

From FSF's Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL:
<...>
Hope it helps.

It doesn't.

First, because Peter is not releasing foobar to use SRC, but someone else released a plugin to be used in foobar. There's a cause and consequence difference there.

Second, because most often than not you can not trust the FAQs at FSF. They are permeated by their zealotry.



Let's imagine a situation here:

Somebody managed to reverse engineer the foobar2000 SDK and created another player that can use foobar2000's plugins (we all saw that happen before with Winamp). This somebody releases this player under the GPL.

So, now, it suddenly becomes legal to create and release a plugin that uses SRC? It'll obviously be perfectly fine to add a SRC plugin for this hypotetical player, being GPL and all.

So, it is legal to create and release plugins, but you are limited to where you can use your plugin? Hrm... the plot thickens.


The bottom line:

Wooohooo, here comes the clue train, last stop is Mr. Erik de Castro Lopo! SRC is not and did not link against foobar2000. It's linking against the foobar SDK. And the SDK is released under the BSD license - that is compatible with the GPL.
Neither is Peter releasing "a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in". For that to be characterized, he would have to bundle the plugin with foobar - and he's smart enough and knowledgeable enough about licenses to know that is a no-no.

Hope that clarifies the situation.

Best regards;

Me.


Edit: typos

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Oct 23 2005, 00:07

[m3ga]

[quote=rjamorim,Oct 23 2005, 09:03 AM]

> First, because Peter is not releasing foobar to use SRC,

Who is Peter? I assume he is the author of FooBar. I have not made any claims
against FooBar. My claim was the the plugin which uses SRC and violated my
license.

> Second, because most often than not you can not trust the FAQs at FSF. They are permeated by
> their zealotry.

So according to you we should ignore the FSF's zealotry but listen to yours?

> Wooohooo, here comes the clue train, last stop is Mr. Erik de Castro Lopo!

That is somewhat inflamatory. I'll try to ignore it.

> SRC is not and did not link against foobar2000. It's linking against the foobar SDK. And the SDK is
> released under the BSD license - that is compatible with the GPL.

I repeat, my claim was against the plugin author not the foobar author. Secondly, my
complaint was that the plugin was released as a binary and that the source code was
not made available. Please explain to me how this was not a violation of the GPL.

In this plugin, SRC linked the the FooBar SDK which links to FooBar, therefore, when the
plugin is loaded by foobar, SRC links to FooBar. Once SRC links to Foobar my license
is being violated. It is being violated by the end user who under the GPL has rights to
do just about anything as long as they don't distribute it. However, even if the plugin author
released the source code, the sole purpose of this source would be to link my GPL code
to a binary only program. I think that you will find that this is somewhat shaky legal
ground.

Erik

This post has been edited by m3ga: Oct 23 2005, 09:27