GENERAL: Technical GPL Violations?

[Maajromax]

I downloaded the source code today and randomly browsed through it -- it appears that Activision is violating the GPL with its distribution of things in the /bin directory.

Sed, cp, mv, find, and grep seem to be the GNU versions, and flex may be as well. Technically, Activision's inclusion of them in the CTP2 source code (under the same restrictive license) is a violation of the GPL.

This is a minor point, but someone should probably mention it before a lawyer sees it.

[kaan]

That could be a problem, i really hope they only used stuff released under a bsd type license.

[J Bytheway]

I believe that they aren't actually covered by most of the restrictions in the licence, since they are not in fact source code, but that's certainly arguable. Given the prescence of cygwin dlls it seems likely that they are the cygwin versions, which I presume are GNU versions.

Certainly if they are GNU versions then at the very least a copy of the GPL and a pointer to where you can get their source code should have been included...

[Pyaray]

I couild be mistaken, I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I haven't read the agreement lately. But I think the GPL license states that the source must be availble to the user, not necessarily that it needs to be distributed with it at all times. And the source is available to those tools. The binaries were included as a conveniance, not as an official distribution.

Pyaray

[Maajromax]

Although this is obviously far from intentional (and a minor point at that), technically Activision did make a distribution of several GNU tools, licensed under the GPL Version 2. They did so without, as the GPL requires, providing source code or offering to do so for those tools -- in fact, these tools are included without credit to their copyright holders. Since this is probably a noncommercial distribution, they'd likely be allowed to just 'relay the offer' they got with their own acquisition.

In addition, my reading of the Activision license prevents redistribution of parts of the source code, which would include /bin; again, technically this prevents further redistribution of some of these GNU tools.

Frankly, I'm somehow surprised that this got past the lawyers -- they were stripping COMMENTS, for $DIETY's sake. Personally, I'd rather have comments and no /bin than the other way around.

[edit: added this]
Obviously, the /bin directory is completely seperate from the actual source code -- there's no reason for Activision to do anything drastic like withdraw the source, because the /bin directory is only used to build the game; no improper relations between Activision and non-Activision code.

[kaan]

If these programs are GPL, and that seems likely, Then the solution is quite simple, we just add the sourcecode and the GPL license in that dir and we are done, no problem left.

heres a link to the GPL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

and heres a bit of it

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

[MrBaggins]

Technically... we don't have to do anything. This is an Activision issue.

We could have a topped thread with the GPL info and source, since we are essentially the distribution point... though, perhaps?

I guess it could be a problem if some jobs-worth decided it to be... and the source package really has a limited, non-public audience. We all know the GPL situation, and aren't looking to abuse their product, or Activisions for that matter.

Any public ultimate work that was subsequently created (I.E. a patch or replacement CTP2.EXE) would need appropriate credits and thats about it...

[Maajromax]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Any public ultimate work that was subsequently created (I.E. a patch or replacement CTP2.EXE) would need appropriate credits and thats about it...

Not even that -- unless they do something really funny in the build process, nothing in the /bin directory is actually included in the CTP2 executable; they're merely tools to aid the build process.

While I think there probably should be some official statement/action from Activision on this, if for no other reason than to make their lawyers earn their paychecks, this has no bearing on the status of the CTP2 source itself (everything not in the /bin directory).

[ahenobarb]

Re: Technical GPL Violations?

Originally posted by Maajromax
I downloaded the source code today and randomly browsed through it -- it appears that Activision is violating the GPL with its distribution of things in the /bin directory.

...

This is a minor point, but someone should probably mention it before a lawyer sees it.

You must be American. Anyone who knows that much about the GPL knows where to find the source code to Grep. Grep is so ancient I think it was programmed on Napier's bones.