Now back off you GPL wolves. Sheesh. In fact, you even mention that there’s a grace period in GPLv3. But that matters not since the copyright holder has basically said “no harm no foul.”

Stop being so harsh, Anon. Sheesh.

When we learned of this, we immediately rectified the situation, by removing the infringing code. As you can see from the comment above your own (as well as his own site), the copyright holder, Jon Lech Johansen, is quite satisfied. Thus, the matter is resolved.

Kindly point out the section in GPLv2 that absolves you of copyright infringement for the copies that you distributed.

It is certainly true that you cannot be forced to open source your code but you nonetheless have no distribution license if you do not comply with the GPL and have thus committed copyright infringement.

(GPLv3 has a grace period where you can come into compliance.)

Anyhow, as noted, this was cleared up quickly, and we took the proper steps to fix the issue. The idea that the GPL can be used as some sort of “Gotcha!”, where if you ever use it you’re suddenly forced to open all your source, is both wrong and ridiculous.

“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.)”

Subsection c does not apply because RA is commercial. Subsection a does not apply because they did not include source code with the download. Therefore, subsection b applies – RA must, “for at least three years”, give the source code out to “any third party”. In a practical sense, this offer only actually applies for those people who download the binary from RA, because those are the people who have a license with RA.

Or, RA could say they do not agree to the GPL and suffer the results of their copyright infringement. It sounds like that’s what they’re doing here.

–Quentin (not RA’s Quentin)

Thanks Quentin and Rogue Amoeba for the prompt resolution of this matter.