Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
Yaroslav Halchenko writes:
> I've ran into a problem: given firefox extension released under
> GPL as shipped (.xpi files) has obscured .js files -- all
> formatting was removed.
>
> I've asked the upstream to provide proper source code, but so far he
> effectively refused to do that, although it seems to be a very simple
> operation to perform.
>
> For our discussion see
> http://z9.invisionfree.com/foxyproxy/index.php?showtopic=250
>
> If I understood GPL license correctly, upstream author simply can't
> release anything under GPL if he doesn't provide sources. Whenever I've
> asked on mozilla's addons IRC I've got reply as
> "afaik he codes himself, and so if he writes on his page / in the
> package that it is gpl, you can use it under the gpl license" but I
> think that he/she is incorrect in his/her understanding of GPL.
>
> Could anyone correct/confirm me? Is there anything I could do to gently
> force upstream to either provide the sources or rerelease his
> probably-full-of-spyware software under some non-FOSS license, so I
> don't even bother thinking about packaging/using it? ;-)
A copyright owner can distribute his software under a license that is
impossible to fulfill. The problem -- especially with copyleft -- is
when anyone else wants to exercise the rights that the license is
supposed to grant. Courts would have to interpret how the license
should be construed when the copyright owners' terms are impossible to
satisfy. The safe thing is to not distribute or modify any work like
that.
Michael Poole
Reply to: