Enforcing GPL without copyright From what I understand the GPL license can only be enforced by the copyright holder. Therefore, given a scenario like this: A developer finds an abandoned software project licensed under GPL. S/he builds upon the project and extends the functionality (which I'm assuming would counts as derivative work). S/he releases the improved source code to everyone else. At some point the GPL license has been violated. Could the new developer enforce the license if the original copyright holder is long-gone or undisclosed in the original work? Or is the license only enforceable by the original creator?
There are now 2 works. An original, abandoned work, and a new, derivative work. The original creator owns the copyright over the original, and the new person owns copyright over the derivative he created. In your scenario, it will be the new creator, who will have the right to sue, if the gpl of the new work has been infringed
Source code is protected by copyright, even if it is designed for an unethical or illegal purpose. Making a copy without permission is copyright infringement, as is distributing a copy without permission, unless an exception to copyright applies. In the US the primary exception is fair use. Whether a use constitutes a fair use or not depends on the detailed facts, including the nature and purpose of the use, and the plausible effect on the market for the protected work. The question does not contain enough information for even a rough fair use analysis. It is generally not unlawful to create malware, only to use it to access a computer or network without permission, or to do other unlawful acts. Thus the copyright holder could sue without implicating him- or herself in a crime. However, damages would probably depend largely on the commercial value of the program, and if the only plausible use was criminal, the legitimate value might be quite low. Possessing an unauthorized copy of a work is not a crime, nor is it infringement. The maker and distributor of an unauthorized copy commits infringement, but the recipient does not. Whether unauthorized access and downloading is a crime under the CFAA depends on the factual details. Many things that might technically be crimes under the CFAA are not prosecuted. That is a matter for the relevant prosecutor to determine.
They certainly can make that a license term and revoke the license if you do not comply. However, revoking the license is all they can do to &quot;forbid&quot;. Or they could sue you for damages without revoking the license. That said, you are free to consult how to use their software so long as you do not hold a license so that you are not bound by the terms AND you do not break the law e.g. copyright. How to do it is up to you to figure. Maybe you could simply consult users that do have a license — on their premises and devices.
It depends on the game and what you copy. Games are an utter nightmare when it comes to IP law as so many parts of them cannot be copyrighted. Game rules for example cannot be copyrighted, nor can the concept itself. Some things can be copyrighted or trademarked. You cannot use the following: Names Written elements- while the rules themselves can't be copyrighted, rulebooks can Artwork and other visual elements Miniatures designed for the game Original characters Try to avoid these and the Hasbro lawyers should leave you alone.
If your own software includes software covered by the GPLv2 (for example by copying source code, or by linking dynamically) then your own software is also covered by the GPLv2, and you will have to provide the source code. This is called a "work based on the Program" on the GPLv2. In this case, however, it seems that your own software does not include software covered by the GPLv2, but you want to put it onto an SD card together with software covered by the GPLv2. That would most likely fall under "mere aggregation of another work", as long as your software and the other software do not interact very closely (such as dynamic linking). To quote the GPLv2: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. So in that case the GPLv2 does not cover your program. You will still have to supply the source code for the GPLv2 software on the SD card. This is covered by section 3 of the GPLv2. Basically, you have two options: send along the complete source code for all the software (would be quite bothersome for a complete distro) or provide a written offer to provide the source code on demand to anyone who asks (you may charge for this, but only to cover your cost) GPLv2 contains a third option, but that only applies to non-commercial distribution. Practically speaking, it should be enough to include a README.txt or similar explaining that the SD card contains software covered by GPLv2, and that you will provide the source code on demand for a certain, reasonable fee (say $5 or $10 per CD). In practice, it is unlikely that anyone would ask for this, as the source code can usually be downloaded for free elsewhere, but if someone does ask, you just charge them $5 and send a CD. Of course, to reduce legal risks it may be prudent to contact a lawyer for your jurisdiction, as this is only general advice.
In the EU, software license resale is legal, even if explicitly forbidden by terms of any EULA or other contract imposed upon the parties. To quote the European Court of Justice's press release on its ruling in a case in Germany between Oracle and a German reseller, An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his `used' licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet. [...] The principle of exhaustion of the distribution right applies not only where the copyright holder markets copies of his software on a material medium (CD-ROM or DVD) but also where he distributes them by means of downloads from his website. Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible – and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the license agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy. There are many such companies in the EU who resell software legally, including used OEM Windows licenses that are far cheaper than retail copies. This is, in my opinion, a fantastic thing -- but undoubtedly has been behind the trend towards time-limited licenses rather than perpetual ones, which we all arguably suffer from today.
Yes, a work with no license is All Rights Reserved, reserved meaning the creator of the work. Who is the creator of the work ? Everyone who contributed it, unanimously. Yes. If people contributed any copyrightable part of your work, in theory you cannot add any license or grant any right to use/reproduce/whatever the work without their unanimous agreement. That's very cumbersome, and almost nobody really does that, but it's what the law is. Big serious companies and repos require contributors to waive their rights on the code they contribute, by agreeing to a contributor's agreement. For example, python/cpython requires you to give your contribs a license allowing the python org to do essentially what they want with it, even though you retain copyright over them. If your project is not so serious, I suggest it should be enough to make the license clear, and that by contributing people are agreeing to place their contribution's code under the license. If it's a free license, that's all you need.
The GPL that covers the OpenJDK certainly allows you to write and distribute your own Java implementation. On that point, your reading is absolutely correct. However, if that implementation is a derivative work of the OpenJDK, then the GPL requires you to make your derivative implementation available under the GPL as well, per the GPL's copyleft rules. If you follow the rules of the GPL, you can do exactly what you propose. Note that the Supreme Court ruling in Oracle v. Google found that using only API structure and names, without copying any underlying implementation, constitutes fair use, and therefore doesn't require copyright permission. If you hold your implementation to that standard and use/look at only interfaces while authoring your new implementation, then your new work is broadly allowed under copyright law, so you do not need to rely on the GPL's permissions (and therefore neither do you need to follow its requirements). Google didn't want to have to abide by the terms of the GPL, probably because due to concerns that the any GPL terms that applied to their Java implementation might also apply to other components of their system, which they wished to keep closed-source. In other words, if Google had claimed their acquired their right to use the APIs under the GPL, then they would have been required to put potentially the entire operating system under the GPL, which they had not done nor wished to do. For this case, the GPL has been largely ignored because Google has not followed the requirements of GPL in licensing their Java implementation (and operating system that uses it), so there's no point in Google trying to claim that their right to use the API came from the GPL. Furthermore, Google claimed that they didn't use any of Oracle's copyrighted material, so it's not possible for them to say their use of Oracle's material was licensed under the GPL, as they claim there was no use whatsoever, licensed or otherwise. This is explained at length on fosspatents.com's article &quot;Q&amp;A on the Dec. 4 Oracle v. Google Android-Java copyright hearing before the Federal Circuit&quot;: 2. Q: Does this litigation involve Google's rights to use certain Java code under an open source license? A: No. Google could have incorporated Java into Android on open source terms, but chose to eschew the GNU General Public License (GPL) because of its &quot;copyleft&quot; feature. [...] If Google had ever claimed in this litigation that Android's incorporation of Java was authorized under the GPL, this would have been inconsistent with its claim that it didn't use any copyrightable material (you can only license something, on whatever terms, if it's protected) and, far more importantly, a blatant violation of Rule 11 (truthful pleading standard) resulting in sanctions for Google and its counsel. The GPL affords you four freedoms: it allows you to use software without paying for it (freedom 0), to modify its source code as you please (freedom 1), to redistribute copies (freedom 2), and to distribute your modified versions to others (freedom 3). But once you exercise freedom 3, you're subjected to the copyleft rule: you must make your modified version available under the GPL. As a result, Google would have had to publish Android under the GPL. But it did not. [...] [...]Google seeks to exercise as much control over Android as possible. If Android had to be released under the GPL (and only under the GPL, or at least a compatible copyleft license), Google would have a hard time keeping a growing number of core Android components like its Mail and Map clients or even the new on-screen keyboard (again, more about that in the next section) closed -- and Google's hardware partners would have to release their proprietary enhancements such as Samsung's Touchwiz and HTC Sense under the GPL, which would run counter to their objective of differentiation because their competitors could then use the same code.