
GPL violations for advertising purposes - HaoZeke
https://github.com/MediaBrowser/Emby/issues/3075
======
jcstryker
Unfortunate that this has been going on for over 4 months, with not even
platitudes, just "we are discussing it internally".

Emby markets itself as an open source competitor to Plex, however the binaries
they distribute are not reproducible using the code published in the
repository. Despite multiple requests for the build scripts for the dotnet
core version of Emby, the core developer Luke states "we are currently not
publishing the build process for it, but don't worry, we will be doing .net
core-based packages for all of the popular distros."[0]

The GPL requires the release of not just source code, but build scripts and
supporting materials, outlined here in the SFLC's "A Practical Guide to GPL
Compliance", sections 3.3, 3.4, 4.2.3. [1]

The core development team has been made aware of this, but is still refusing
to make the build scripts available for the currently distributed version of
Emby. Neither have they relicensed the project, despite all current
contributions being covered under a CLA. This constitutes a willful and
deliberate violation of the GPLv2.

[0]
[https://emby.media/community/index.php?/topic/51614-instruct...](https://emby.media/community/index.php?/topic/51614-instructions-
to-build-netcore-version-from-source/)

[1] [https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-
gu...](https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Emby markets itself as an open source competitor to Plex

Which, so long as they provide downstream with the permissions in the open
source license they offer, is correct. Whether they are violating upstream
open source licenses is an almost entirely separate concern, relevant only in
that it could conceivably lose them the right to continue to offer their
software at all, under open source or other terms.

~~~
jcstryker
How is it free software if I am unable to produce a build from the the source
code that is made available. This clearly violates freedoms 0 and 1.

From the SFLC Guide:

"The Corresponding Source definition – both in GPLv2 and GPLv3 – has not been
typically read to include the compiler itself, but rather things like
makefiles, build scripts, and packaging scripts."

These are not provided with the source code, and they claim the distributed
binaries are licensed under the GPL. How is this correct if they do not
satisfy the 4 freedoms?

------
dragonwriter
If none of the upstream copyright holders feel there is a violation worth
pursuing, then there is no real issue.

If the upstream copyright holders feel there is a violation worth pursuing,
then they have venues to which to escalate if an issue filed with the project
is inadequate to resolve the problem.

~~~
jcstryker
The project claims to be licensed under the GPL and markets itself as an open
source competitor to Plex. Even if only the copyright holders have the
standing to pursue a violation, that doesn't change the fact that they are
falsely advertising their project and are not following their own selected
license.

They distribute packages for Linux distro's, where the GPL is listed as the
license for the package, instead they should be listed as custom or
proprietary.

~~~
dragonwriter
> They distribute packages for Linux distro's, where the GPL is listed as the
> license for the package, instead they should be listed as custom or
> proprietary.

No, you are confused about the meaning of the license label: that's the terms
they are offering downstream (e.g., what permissions, and with what
conditions, people _getting_ the package from them have), not the terms they
are bound by. If upstream is proprietary, but the distributor has purchased
the right to offer GPL downstream, GPL is the correct label. If upstream is
permissive open source, and the distributor has decided to only offer GPL
downstream, GPL is the correct label. If the distributor is the sole copyright
holder and bound by _nothing_ , and has decided to offer GPL downstream, GPL
is the correct label. If upstream is offered to the public under the GPL, but
the distributor has a special deal for an exemption from a particular term
with the upstream distributor, but is still offering GPL downstream, GPL is
the correct label.

While the copyleft nature of the GPL is that people offering it to the public
will often be obligated to particular upstream partners to also observe its
restriction, upstream and downstream licensing are different things, and the
label on a package is the downstream offer, not the upstream commitment. As a
recipient, their obligation to you is to honor the offer they have made to
you, which is simply that _you_ may distribute under the conditions in the
GPL.

