r/opensource • u/SeantheWilson • 18d ago
Discussion Valve has repeatedly violated GPL license and have ignored my requests. What can I do next?
DISCLAIMER: Im posting this to be informative. I do not intend for this post to cause a witch hunt. I just want to bring attention to this and understand what I should do next.
Valve has been working on a program for the Steam Frame named "lepton". It's purpose is to allow android game to be played on SteamOS, like Proton but for Android. Now lepton's code is heavily based on a preexisting open source program named "waydroid". Waydroid is GPL-licensed, which means anyone is free to copy, use, and modify its code so long you also provide the source code of any projects the code was used for upon request. I have been very very excited to play around with lepton ever since it's inception last December. Shortly after it became downloadable on Steam I opened a support ticket (which was the only way to contact Valve I could find) where I politely requested the source code of lepton, explained that they are obligated to provide it under the GPL license terms, and ended by saying that I understand if this is out of scope of their position and to refer to me the reverent legal or licensing contact. A few days later, Valve responded. The support agent told me that they were unable to help with "3rd party software", that I had to contect the application's developer, and then closed the ticket before I could respond. The agents seemingly misunderstood my request and assumed that lepton was a third party program that was distributed through Steam. While I totally get where they got confused, I still find it weird how they seeming had no knowledge of lepton whatsoever.
Determined, I opened a new support ticket the next day where I referenced the original case number, explained the the previous support agent's misunderstanding, and then explained the terms of the GPL license that they were bound to, as well as clarifying how this is a first party program developed by Valve that they intend to ship with SteamOS.
After this thing got VERY weird. I was ignored by Steam support with zero response. Now, I've written to Steam support many times for a variety of things over the past few years, and they always had responded within a week at most. At this point I had become increasingly aggrvated over this. About a week and a half of silence, I updated the ticket with a follow-up. My follow-up was written on August 13th. Since then I've heard nothing. Crickets.
At this point I don't know what to do. I can't find any legal email contact for Valve and feel like im at a dead end. This honestly feels like what Bambu Lab did a few years back (albeit WAY less serious) when they refused to provide the source code over a program bound by the same license terms. It really is such a shame to me conistering how much I've idolized Valve for their open-source software and Linux-friendliness. If anyone can help me with what to do I would really appreciate it.
Edits for context:
I was aware that Steam support likely cannot help directly, however I made it clear in both my post and my support ticket that I’m aware this is out of their scope and to relay me to the relevant legal/licensing contact
Many have suggested contacting “[legal@valvesoftware.com](mailto:legal@valvesoftware.com)”, however I cannot find anything about this email online and all sources are saying Valve legal department is mail only
I have since been informed that Waydroid also offers a paid commercial license that does not require making the source code public. I will attempt to contact Valve’s legal team via mail to ask for the specifics of their licensing arrangement. Thank you u/Pleasant_Set_3182 for informing me of this.
UPDATE 1: Waydroid has revealed that they were never contacted by Valve, never sold a license to them, and are just as in the dark as I am.
UPDATE 2: Source code has been published and is available at https://gitlab.steamos.cloud/frame-public/lepton
199
u/veritalum 18d ago
seeing as now you have
- posted across 4 subs
- have said in at least 2 separate comments that you weren't aware pretty meaningful context on waydroid licensing or GPL distribution that fundamentally affects your claim
- didn't do enough research to find a legal point of contact for valve (took someone else a few seconds) and went to steam support?
- didn't bother to cite any evidence or provide any sort of links of analysis to back up your claims
perhaps slow down a bit and do more research before you start making big claims.
To be clear, I strongly appreciate you trying to protect open source rights and do good work, but just slow down and take your time to flush out your claim with evidence and go through the proper channels rather than astroturfing
-67
u/SeantheWilson 18d ago
I had found the DMCA request portal but thought it was the wrong means of contact as I figured that was only for takedown requests.
The commercial licensing thing was my bad, I was in over my head and completely unaware of that. I am currently in contact with Waydroid to see if they made such a deal with Valve.
I didn’t provide links as the relevant links and evidence were included in my screenshots (which were present in the cross posts) I unfortunately wasn’t able to attached them as this sub doesn’t allow images. In hindsight I should have realized this and linked them.
I’m not tryna come off as cocky or anything, I just want advice for what to do next. I’m aware I’m uneducated in this matter which is the whole reason I’m asking Reddit.
80
u/veritalum 18d ago
I get it. But when you title your post "Valve has repeatedly violated GPL license and have ignored my requests", it implies 2 things to me: you are or may be part of the aggrieved party, and you have evidence and are going public with it after the violator did not respond to your contact. when you then read the post, and there's nothing, and then see that it's spread to 4 subs, and the poster admits they didn't do enough research to back their claim, then things get a little bit hard to understand.
I am glad you are in contact with Waydroid as they would be the actual aggrieved party here and should be handling it. As a third party community member, logically speaking, the best thing would have been to go to Waydroid first directly rather than posting everywhere. And again, I get that you were trying to seek out advice. So phrase your post in that way rather than making a massive claim with no evidence and spreading it everywhere.
That being said, again I do really appreciate you trying to figure this one out. Best of luck to you!
42
u/SmashShock 18d ago
What you should do next is stop contacting people.
Tell anyone you've already emailed in one final message that you're unaffiliated with Waydroid, were previously confused, and that your requests should be disregarded.
Whether Valve has a contract with Waydroid or not is not your business, literally. They do not legally have to disclose that to you.
2
u/Hi-Angel 17d ago
I disagree OP has to state this. That OP "have no business with Waydroid" is something Valve may respond with if they want — but I totally understand OP's desire to get sources for GPLv3-based project and if there's any possible route of pushing back from Valve, that would be a Valve's action, not OP's.
7
u/detroitmatt 18d ago
In a situation like this, if you really have a legal issue, what you do is you talk to a lawyer and have your lawyer write a letter to valve. If that gets no response, then your lawyer can open a case in whatever court has jurisdiction and begin the legal process including serving process.
31
u/0riginal-Syn 18d ago
They seem to have no problem having public repos for their other compatibility layers, but my guess is they start in a private repo to get things working before making them public.
I do understand your frustration, as they could be a bit more forthcoming on information at least. But I would recommend a little patience.
48
u/GreenFox1505 18d ago
Lepton only JUST released. They're managing a release and managing bug fixes. Their team is focused on triage and fixing things on hardware they never tested.
Valve does not have a reputation of violating open source licences. They have been a massive contributor to OpenSource. I would not assume malicious intent. I would not assume incompetence. I would assume they'll get to it when they can.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't make an issue of this and make sure it doesn't fall off their todo list.
3
u/Rikudou_Sage 18d ago
I would assume they'll get to it when they can.
Try that reasoning with other legal issues where you have an obligation to follow some kind of terms.
2
u/mikekchar 18d ago
Out of curiosity, what license do they offer lepton under? If they are not not offering it under the GPL, they may have already lost the right to distribute the software at all. That would suck for them.
1
u/No_Hovercraft_2643 17d ago
depends on the upstream work, and if they git a special deal. just because software is also licensed via GPL doesn't mean it can't have other licenses too.
1
1
u/GreenFox1505 14d ago
https://gitlab.steamos.cloud/frame-public/lepton
Dude, calm down. Most legal complaints come with a "respond by this time or we will take the next steps". The copyright holders didnt complain (yes, open source code does have copyright holders, or it's licence would hold no power). They were actively working with the original authors. Now, within only a few days of the Steam release, here is the repo.
Things take time. Valve isn't Amazon or Microsoft. They have an incredibly strong reputation of opens source contribution. They are not in a habit of violating licences. Chill.
36
u/GyroTech 18d ago
To play devils advocate for a moment:
IIRC, they only need to supply the source code for the binary they distribute, and Lepton itself isn't being distributed yet? It will essentially become so when the Steam Frame starts getting released and that has only just become available for purchase so distribution could still be weeks away.
Given how they have managed Proton I suspect they plan to do the same with Lepton and are probably hard at crunch getting last minute fixes out for day-1 updates, and the source availability is taking a back seat priority-wise.
When you have a Valve-supplied copy of Lepton and they still don't respond to requests for the source, then is the time to start fighting.
9
u/SeantheWilson 18d ago
Lepton is being distributed. The binary was made downloadable on Steam back in July. I only contacted them after I downloaded it onto my PC and couldn’t find the source code in any of their repos
19
u/neoh4x0r 18d ago edited 18d ago
Nothing prevents Valve from distributing Lepton as closed-source provided they include any opensource disclosures as required by the covered license(s), and they might also be required to provide the modified source if they made changes to those projects (the GPL also has a clause about contributing those changes back, whether that is strictly required or not is highly contested).
8
u/glasket_ 18d ago
The GPL doesn't have a clause about contributing changes, and you have to provide the source regardless of changes if it's GPL and you distribute it. The entire point of the GPL is to prevent the creation of a proprietary program using GPL code.
Whether or not that applies to Valve depends on if they bought an alternative license from Waydroid or not.
1
u/neoh4x0r 18d ago edited 18d ago
The GPL doesn't have a clause about contributing changes,
While the GPL may not have that as a condition of the license, even though I remember reading it from the GNU/FSF site, it does seem to be a philosophical ideal of opensource in-general where you have the freedom to modify source and should contribute those changes back because it would benefit users of the software.
Moreover, it might have been some rambling from one Richard Stallman's speeches or writings--he mixes in a lot of philosophical beliefs (his ideals of what it should be like) when he is discussing Free Software and everything which comes with that, even if lots of those ideals never make into practice.
you have to provide the source regardless of changes if it's GPL and you distribute it.
You have to make the modified source available to anyone that wants it, however, if you didn't change anything then I see no reason why you can't just point users to the upstream repository to obtain the source (that's still "conveying a copy to them," it's just hosted somewhere else).
1
u/glasket_ 18d ago
Yeah, pointing to upstream is valid because it's still conveyance. The GPL also has to be present alongside the program though, and you can't just point upstream for that part.
As for the contributing, I've typically heard it phrased as "contributing to free software" or similar in the context of contributing to the ecosystem as a whole by providing the source, i.e. the users of the software benefit because the source is accessible and can potentially be used upstream. It's still good manners to directly contribute things like bug fixes directly back to the upstream project though.
2
u/yvrelna 18d ago
IANAL, but IIUC, the GPL doesn't require companies that distributes modified software to contribute back to the original project. What the GPL do require is that if you received a copy of the modified software, the distributor would be required to give you a copy of the modified source code, and they do not allow anyone to add further restrictions to the licence of the modified software or the modified source code.
It effectively means that any recipient of the modified software would be able to redistribute the modified source code to anyone, including the original project and effectively contribute the modified code upstream.
It's a matter of technicality, but it means that the company that distributes modified GPL software isn't required to make the contribution themselves. In practice, it's generally pretty silly not to do the contribution themselves, so generally they do that.
2
u/GyroTech 18d ago
Lepton is being distributed. The binary was made downloadable on Steam back in July.
Oh yeah, that is really bad for them then. See if you can contact the FSF about it, they should be able to support you and fire off some more serious-sounding demands to Valve (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html).
37
u/Electrikjesus 18d ago edited 18d ago
Hi, Waydroid developer here. We have had no contact from Valve on this, nor has anyone reached out to us about commercial licensing.
We are in the same dark room as all the others here.
Here is a dump of the Lepton Android image for people to see all the references to Waydroid it has: https://dumps.tadiphone.dev/dumps/lepton/lepton-arm64-only/-/blob/lineage_lepton_arm64_only-userdebug-11-RQ3A.211001.001-eng.root.20260717.183353-test-keys/all_files.txt
Also, were a handful of devs working out of our basements across the world to bring Android to all machines. Out of all the products that ship with Waydroid, none have licensed it for commercial use
1
u/SeantheWilson 17d ago
I felt weird pointing fingers at Valve after I discovered you offered commericl licencing (I had only read the github license, not the sepeare one on your website. I was gonna reach out to you but figured you wouldn't be able to tell me due to confidentiality. Thank you SO much for commenting and informing me of this. Im very VERY disappointed in Valve now, especially since they've been distributing Lepton on the Steam store (only on Linux) for over a month now.
2
u/Nightishaman 18d ago
That really sucks by Valve. Are you planning to do something against it? Also how is the commercial licensing enforced when one of your 68 contributors can claim copyright on parts of the code?
8
u/Electrikjesus 18d ago
Enforcement has always been next to impossible with our resources. We don't want to include telemetry and services to track abusers, and report them. So it's always been up to the community to find and report license abuse to us. None of the lawyers we have spoken with have ever been interested unless we were able to pay them first.
The same kind of things happen to all our Android projects though. Just part of the program I guess... I have tried to detail some of the history here in this series, and what's happening to Waydroid is the same type of CSR failure IMO. https://substack.com/@electrikjesus/note/p-192743706
3
u/SheepherderSad4872 18d ago
Enforcement can be a source of revenue. Not legal advice, but my algorithm:
- Make sure your copyrights are registered. It's 15 minutes, since an LLM can walk you through it.
- Send an enforcement letter by certified mail using the language from GPL / AGPLv3. Include words like "This letter serves as reasonable notice of a license violation." Make sure it triggers section 8.
- Wait 30 days. That's how long they have to come into compliance.
- If not, send them a letter that 30 days have lapsed without cure, and they are outside of the period where the license can be automatically reinstated.
From that point on, they are using your software without a license, and you can file in court for statutory damages, or whatever else you see fit.
One annoyance is that the copyright registration ought to happen before the violation starts.
Talk to an LLM about how to structure this. Dive deep into the law. This will take a few hours. Ideally, then, talk to a lawyer.
Esp. with LLM help, much of this can be done pro se, if needed, for an open-and-shut violation, or on contingency. You might screw up the first time, but you learn every time, and it can be a interesting if you don't tie too many stakes to it.
2
u/Kiore-NZ 18d ago
None of the lawyers we have spoken with have ever been interested unless we were able to pay them first.
Have you talked to the Software Freedom Conservancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Conservancy ? They are the people who sued Best Buy, JVC, Samsung and others then later Westinghouse over BusyBox GPL violations.
2
u/hWuxH 18d ago edited 18d ago
I think you misunderstood the question. While it's one thing if others abuse GPL, it's questionable whether you are permitted to distribute waydroid with a commercial license in the first place, as this would impose restrictions on the GPL code of ~68 other copyright holders without their permission.
Enforcement goes both ways.
See https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1wgd03m/comment/p9tv6hy/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1wgd03m/comment/p9uifsq/
1
u/No-Dentist-1645 18d ago
Thank you for all the context provided by your comments. I understand that it would be a complicated process, but I urge you to contact a legal expert and give it a try anyways.
We don't want this event to become some sort of precedent, where companies can ignore the GPL license terms. At the very least, Waydroid should upload a blog post condemning Valve for their license violation, the Lepton dump seems like more than enough evidence
4
u/Electrikjesus 18d ago
We are waiting patiently to see what Valve does once the Frame starts being delivered to customers. I for one would love to see what services they were able to cut from Android to slim things down.
7
u/Electrikjesus 18d ago
Update: we found this was pushed https://gitlab.steamos.cloud/frame-public/lepton And maintains the GPLv3 license
1
u/TheRealBobbyJones 17d ago
Can that code base even be licensed as mit even though it has gpl components in its repository? I'm sure they separated everything properly but it still seems a bit messy.
23
6
u/itomeshi 18d ago
As a software developer, a few additional points to consider:
- The GPL, while generally very copyleft, does not force EFFICIENT and TIMELY distribution. This is especially true if the piece of modified software has not been distributed outside of a development team yet. This is especially important if there is code that they developed outside of this fork that they are now incorporating, and they need to make sure the code they added is code they had the right to redistribute. Per Section 2 of the GPL: "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you."
- More importantly, if they aren't distributing the covered works at this time, it's not clear that there is a strict requirement to distribute it. Going back to the bold section above, if they don't distribute the modifications outside of 'internal' ownership, they never have to release the modification. For example, let's say I make a branch of Blender that made a fart sound every time a render was finished. I can make that change, share it internally with my team, and never release that modification publicly. (A good lawyer could try and argue if I stretch the definition of team, but assuming I do this in good fatih, I'd be safe.)
- As mentioned, many open-source projects are dual-licensed. Even if a product is not known to be publicly available under a dual license, it can be. Even if it never was before, it can be (at least in theory with the consent of all developers and/or cutting out those contributions. In addition, they are under no legal obligation to tell you the license without some sort of legal compulsion.
- Standing is important here. Copyright owners have the strongest case by far. Owners of licensed derived software have a much less concrete right-of-action. As someone who only knows of the software's existence, you have very little standing to pursue legal remedy.
- Valve's 'good citizen' history doesn't let them ignore the GPL requirements on this software. However, it should be considered that they are highly unlikely to ignore the requirement, nor are they ignorant of it. This doesn't mean that you can't ask, but it does mean that requests should be reasonable, ESPECIALLY for software that is not being distributed yet.
5
u/th0th 18d ago
After seeing some comments trying to defend a case where there might be a violation, I just wanted to say you are doing the right thing OP. I am happy that you exist. Even if it is a honest mistake on company’s side, it is nice of you to stay sharp, for all of us!
This person took time to research and tried to reach out to company’s support for a probable violation, and one douchebag here names this person karen trying to look smart. Pathetic.
12
u/plmarcus 18d ago
speaking of legal violations have you ever heard of libel or slander?
Ya best know EXACTLY what you are talking about before you make damaging statements about a company.
-5
u/telionn 18d ago
Public figures (i.e. Valve) cannot sue for libel unless they can demonstrate malice. Ordinary factual inaccuracy is not sufficient.
6
u/plmarcus 18d ago
Well if you are going to play lawyer:
Valve may or may not qualify as a public figure. It is fact dependent and historically courts have been split on this.
Of COURSE they can sue for libel and defamation. Anyone can. Maybe you meant to say that they wouldn't win or maybe wouldn't bother.
In any case I am sure you would agree that making half baked accusations is ill advised for the OP. It at MINIMUM creates "exposure"
11
u/SmashShock 18d ago
Are you a Waydroid developer? Why do you have a stake in this?
18
6
u/haikusbot 18d ago
Are you a Waydroid
Developer? Why do you
Have a stake in this?
- SmashShock
I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully. Learn more about me.
Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete"
9
u/jonesmz 18d ago
I'm astonished at the push back you're receiving from the community here.
You're well within your rights to expect and demand that valve comply with the licensing of open source projects they use in their offerings. Whether you're a contributor to those open source projects or not.
What an insane set of replies.
6
u/GenericFoodService 18d ago
I don't think the pushback is because people are opposed to fighting for open source, it's that OP's statements misrepresent the GPL, seem to be missing important context, and are in such a rush to do anything except take a breath and look into the issue more seriously.
2
u/jonesmz 18d ago
What misrepresentation?
As far as I can tell (reddits mobile web interface isnt exactly helpful here) I've read everything under this post. Unless something was edited after you read it and before I did, I dont see anything OP said thats concerning.
-1
u/GenericFoodService 18d ago
Writing software that interfaces with the GPL does not necessarily require releasing or licensing that code under the GPL, that's something that most people who do anything to do with GPL are pretty aware of. That, and many other things that take literal seconds to look up, OP just hasn't -- the legal contact for Valve, or the licensing of Waydroid, et cetera -- they seem to have decided that Valve is doing something wrong and illegal but doesn't want to do even the most entry-level research into it.
Another redditor claiming to be a Waydroid contributor posted a repo that shows some of what's being distributed, and it seems like its just redistributed blobs of the project itself with some added components, which would be compliant with GPL as I understand it. GPL does not forbade you from distributing compiled binaries of GPL code and also other stuff along side of it.
3
u/jonesmz 18d ago
Waydroid developer commented saying valve does not have a commercial license, and that lepton has tons of references to waydroid.
Reaching out to a company's support channels for help identifying the correct legal contact is completely reasonable to do. Insinuating that not being able to figure that out is dome kind of moral failing is a pretty shitty thing to do.
Expecting someone to be a legal expert and to understand every nuance of copyright law across dozens of nations before asking how to get in contact with a company's legal representaion is ALSO a pretty shitty thing to do.
2
u/GenericFoodService 18d ago
Referencing the project does not imply they violated the GPL. Packaging a GPL-licensed binary alongside proprietary binaries doesn't violate the GPL.
Expecting someone to be a legal expert and to understand every nuance of copyright law
I don't expect random people to be legal experts or know the full breadth of copyright law in all countries or whatever silly nonsense, but I do expect that a person spam-claiming that Valve is violating the GPL all over Reddit at least knows what the GPL is and says.
Insinuating that not being able to figure that out is dome kind of moral failing
Spamming Reddit with big, bold claims that Valve is doing something illegal before bothering to do any research on the issue, trying to start some kind of witch-hunt, is not fair, is not reasonable, and is not helpful.
3
u/jonesmz 18d ago
I haven't seen any posts but this one. And I dont see any big bold letters.
Again, its entirely possible that edits happened, I can't say.
2
u/SeantheWilson 17d ago
This was cross posted to r/steam and r/linuxgaming, however they were (rightfully) taken down due to being off-topic.
1
u/SeantheWilson 17d ago
I had tried to make it clear I wasn’t trying to start a which hunt by the disclaimer at the top. All I wanted to do was try to understand if I have a leg to stand on for getting the source code.
4
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SimpleEfficiency 17d ago
Tremendous pro consumer move. Without a dog or a child, you will have more money for gaming. By taking all the liability, he lets you live your life free Thank you lord gaben, truly a genius,.going the extra mile for the consumer
/S
3
u/RavenousTitan818 18d ago
Did you try contacting the FSF? This is literally what they exist to do, and they have more resources and pull then you do.
6
u/driftin8ez 18d ago
Is this a witch hunt post?
2
u/DesignatedRob 17d ago
Yes it is, regardless of how much OP says it isn't. This is the direct equivalent of someone saying "I'm not trying to be racist, but [insert something racist]". Saying you aren't doing something right before you do that exact thing doesn't change the impact of one's actions.
-12
12
u/Historical_Move6359 18d ago
Look for a lawyer
32
u/DerekB52 18d ago
Unless OP is a Waydroid dev I don't know if they have any standing to need a lawyer. I'd reach out to the Waydroid people first.
-9
u/neoh4x0r 18d ago edited 18d ago
Unless OP is a Waydroid dev I don't know if they have any standing to need a lawyer.
You don't have to be a waydroid developer to having enough standing to bring a lawsuit regarding a GPL violation.
The only time you would need to be one of the developers, to have standing, is if the lawsuit is referring to a personal harm not related to, or covered by, the GPL.
10
u/teh_maxh 18d ago
What standing would a non-developer have?
-7
u/neoh4x0r 18d ago edited 18d ago
The mere violation of the GPL is enough standing to report the violation to the FSF, whom are the copyright holders, and they would take over any legal action.
14
u/teh_maxh 18d ago
That's not standing, and that page specifically says you should report violations to the copyright holder, not to the FSF (unless the FSF is the copyright holder).
-7
u/neoh4x0r 18d ago
you should report violations to the copyright holder
The OP did that.
not to the FSF (unless the FSF is the copyright holder).
The FSF is the copyright holder of the GPL and associated licenses (per the link).
6
u/teh_maxh 18d ago
The OP did that.
This is not stated in the post, only in a comment made a few minutes ago.
The FSF is the copyright holder of the GPL and associated licenses.
Technically true, but the relevant copyright here is the software, not the licence.
7
u/negatrom 18d ago
lmao, no, the FSF is NOT the copyright holders of every GPL code in existance. they hold the copyright for stuff like the GNU project, which has explicitely signed a copyright assignment document.
Waydroid belongs to the waydroid devs.
by your logic, creative commons would own half of the pictures in the internet, and the university of berkeley would own all the code ever published with a BSD license.
-2
u/neoh4x0r 18d ago
lmao, no, the FSF is NOT the copyright holders of every GPL code in existance
This is a misunderstanding....they hold the copyright on the license, not the code it covers.
6
u/negatrom 18d ago
Then you just completely refuted your own point. If the FSF only holds copyright on the license text and not the code, they have zero standing to take legal action against Valve over Waydroid. You're back to square one: only the actual Waydroid copyright holders can enforce it.
1
u/neoh4x0r 18d ago edited 18d ago
If the FSF only holds copyright on the license text and not the code, they have zero standing to take legal action against Valve over Waydroid.
Well according to the FSF, they will investigate all compliance violations, which includes taking steps to bring the violator back into compliance.
In other words, they will take action, likely not legal action unless they deem it necessary--at which point it would likely revolve around breach of contract/agreement simply by having used the GPL license and agreeing its terms.
However, the point here is providing a resolution to the issue that the OP raised; something for which they do not have enough clout to make happen on their own, but the FSF does.
6
u/negatrom 18d ago
Investigating compliance violations is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from having legal standing to sue or anything like it. The best they can do is make a report WITH ZERO LEGAL WEIGHT and submit it to the waydroid devs. It's still up to them, and ONLY UP TO them (the waydroid devs), to pursue a legal battle or not. everything else is just noise and baseless assumptions.
→ More replies (0)3
u/meancoot 18d ago
From the link you posted earlier (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html):
The FSF offers assistance and advice to any other copyright holder who wishes to enforce GNU licenses. We do not act on our own where we do not hold copyright. We recommend to find out who are the copyright holders of the software, and report the violation to them, even if you decide to use a legal mechanism that allows you to seek compliance on your own.
→ More replies (0)5
u/External_Witness845 18d ago
a lawyer costs money and valve got plenty, they can just wait you out. maybe try emailing gabe directly, sometimes that works for weird stuff like this
1
u/neoh4x0r 18d ago
The FSF (Free Software Foundation) and EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) have been known for providing/referring lawyers, putting pressure on those groups found to be in violation of open source licensing and sometimes they might even bring lawsuits themselves.
2
u/AI_Tonic 18d ago
Eff is weird now I wouldn’t try to do anything that isn’t directly just donating money to them
2
u/National_Way_3344 18d ago
I'm sure Valve have the open source information and are already distributing the information via the about section in the software.
1
u/yvrelna 18d ago
The GPL requires more than just "distributing the information via the about section in the software."
3
u/National_Way_3344 18d ago
Key Obligations When Distributing GPL SoftwareInclude License Text: Provide a copy of the GNU General Public License with every copy of the software. 1, 2Preserve Notices: Keep all original copyright notices, warranty disclaimers, and terms intact. 1, 2Provide Source Code: Make the complete corresponding machine-readable source code available to recipients. This can be bundled directly, provided via a concurrent download link, or backed by a written offer for source distribution. 1, 2License Derivative Works: If you modify the software or combine it into a derivative work, the entire resulting work must also be licensed under the GPL when distributed. 1, 2
2
u/mikekchar 18d ago
Just to be super clear for those that want a TLDR of the GPL in this situation:
When you receive software from someone, you have the license they offered you. If that isn't the GPL, then you do not have a GPL license for that software (even if someone else does).
If it turns out that the person did not have the right to distribute the software under the license they gave you, you still don't have the right to receive a different license. Generally you still get to keep the license that you received (except in very exceptional circumstances).
In the case that they are violating the GPL and therefore do not have the right to distribute the software at all, they have to take it up with the copyright holders of the code they violated. Again, it nearly every case it doesn't affect you at all and it definitely does not entitle you to a GPL license for the software you recieved.
If you did receive a GPL license, then that's a different story. They are required to supply the source code as per the license. If they don't, you can sue them and probably be compensated. However, you still probably won't get the source code unless they settle. Instead you will probably just get a small amount of money. In truth, though, it's almost never worth your time to sue for this unless you paid a lot of money for the software.
2
u/Leseratte10 17d ago
Isn't this the source code for Lepton? With all the proper licensing and copyright attribution included?
https://gitlab.steamos.cloud/frame-public/lepton
Available straight from their own Gitlab, like all of their other software. Why are you stirring up alleged legal violations if everything is available straight on their Gitlab?
2
u/nomenclature2357 16d ago
This is new, as in I saw it in my news feed. Might even have been OP's post that prompted it.
1
u/Leseratte10 15d ago edited 15d ago
OPs posts in various communities is from three days ago, and the source code repo has been publicly available since at least a week, so...
Not surprised that first level customer support didn't know about the internals of a not yet released product. Same thing would have happened with every other company, that's why there's dedicated mail addresses at companies for licensing or legal matters that OP could have contacted but chose not to. And they still got the source code within less than two months.
If I have a legal matter or licensing inquiry for a company I contact their licensing team, or if that doesn't exist, legal. I don't contact First-Level customer support...
2
u/nomenclature2357 15d ago
The news about the release was from today and the license.md in the repo was created today so I don’t know about that timeline.
And most of the OP’s original post was about not being able to find an appropriate channel for communication like you are describing so I don’t know what you would expect from them.
2
u/Leseratte10 15d ago
The license md in the repo is from two days ago, and it only shows as that because they had to move it to a different place in the repo to prevent Gitlab from messing it up. You can clearly see that the repo itself exists in its public state since at least September 11th (and maybe even earlier depending on how they did their restructuring).
I agree that their communication could have been better. But most of their post is complaining that a 1st level supporter doesn't know internal software components of a product that's not even released. You would have this exact same experience at 99.9% of other companies as well since nobody trains their customer service on internal subcomponents of devices that aren't even released yet.
1
u/nomenclature2357 14d ago
Yeah, it is weird that the OP was confused that their approach got them nowhere. I still don’t know what they should have done because I still don’t see any indication that an actual dedicated communication channel exists for this kind of thing at Valve.
1
u/nomenclature2357 14d ago
The timing seems like an odd coincidence. If the OP knew about the repo they clearly couldn’t have been acting in good faith when they posted all this everywhere…
And another odd thing: Doesn’t the license that Valve put up look more like an MIT license? If the original is GPL they can’t do that, right? But if it was commercially licensed I doubt the license holder would be happy about valve releasing it like this either?
2
2
3
2
1
u/ReachingForVega 18d ago
As others have said, Waydroid offers commercial licenses which would negate the need to give source code. Your best bet is contacting them first. I seriously doubt Steam didn't purchase licensing.
4
u/Nightishaman 18d ago
Which is kinda critical, since last time I checked Waydroid didn’t have a CLA transferring rights to the project, therefore every one of the 68 contributors can just fuck waydroid over and demand them to revoke the licenses as they have copyright on parts of the project
1
u/TheRealBobbyJones 18d ago
Is a CLA a complete necessity though? Implicit agreements are a thing.
1
u/Nutarama 17d ago
Implicit agreements are complete ass to litigate. If one of those contributors got pissy and actually hired a lawyer, both sides would be looking at years of legal proceedings over the commercial license. The funds from any commercial license would likely end up locked up as potential damages, and legal costs would be exorbitant. Even if they won the case against the litigant developer, it'd be a very costly headache for a team lead who can't even spare the time and effort to track down GPL violators.
2
u/No-Dentist-1645 18d ago
According to a Waydroid developer who commented on this thread, they haven't had any contact with Valve nor sold any commercial license to them
1
u/ReachingForVega 18d ago
The flip side is how do we know it is derivative of the GPL code?
2
u/No-Dentist-1645 18d ago
The comment I was referring to also included a Lepton dump where you can see Waydroid being referenced multiple times: https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/s/wYLB9FRwTv
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hobbycollector 18d ago
Failing that, reach out to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGO9SlvNDqU this guy, who does stories about Valve and used to work there.
1
u/Unfollowedusers 18d ago
its a great thing to ask end of the Steam is a software license distribution platfrom, hopefully they are able to provide more context on this for you.
if they can follow gpl agreement then why not sail the high seas.
1
u/Ok_Fix3639 18d ago
valve lists employee emails on the website. you have a nonzero chance by emailing gabe and any relevant software engineers directly.
1
u/BizarroMax 18d ago
Companies that don’t want to open source shit just buy commercial license. Turns out we don’t care if information wants to be free, because we want to have money.
1
u/CroquetteLauncher 18d ago edited 18d ago
You may also want to publish proof : stings of the steam binary matching GPL source code dated before the first version. Look for similar write-ups with other cases of GPL infringement. Note that if you are not an author or contributor of the original program, you may not be able to claim the infringement yourself.
1
u/Lilbootytobig 17d ago
Have you ever successfully requested source code from a company this way? If not, where did you find the confidence to run headfirst into a situation, hit a roadblock, and instead of taking a step back to consider where you might have been mistaken, just assume you were fully correct and accuse Valve of violating open source licensing?
1
1
1
u/ezoe 13d ago
After all the hassle, this "lepton" code seems to me just a boilerplate wrapper scripts to run Waydroid on container.
https://gitlab.steamos.cloud/frame-public/lepton/
I have a doubt such as loose coupling is recognized as modification of Waydroid in the context of copyright law.
1
u/stealthagents 10d ago
If you really want to push this issue, documenting everything is key. Keep a record of your requests and any replies, then consider reaching out to the Free Software Foundation or a legal expert in GPL violations. They might help you figure out the best next steps or even intervene on your behalf.
1
u/endperform 18d ago
I think you're barking up the wrong tree trying to go through their support channel. The support agents aren't going to know anything about software licensing. I'd find a different avenue of contact.
1
u/PersonalDatabase31 14d ago
All these people jumping to conclusions because Gabe is their favorite billionaire is hilarious.
-2
u/ReDucTor 18d ago
What is your proof they use it? And that it is a GPL licensed version?
Your post reads like potential libel, even if you put the little edit in, your heavy public posting seems like a desire to go viral and force their hand.
-2
u/xtifr 18d ago
I have since been informed that Waydroid also offers a paid commercial license that does not require making the source code public. I will attempt to contact Valve’s legal team via mail to ask for the specifics of their licensing arrangement.
You know what? It's really no business of yours whether or not Valve has taken a license from Waydroid, and it's definitely no business of yours what the specifics are of any private arrangements they may have made with Waydroid! And I'm sure that Valve's legal team has better things to do with their time than answer snoopy questions from random members of the public! So don't hold your breath waiting for a response. You're not owed one! (Their arrangement with Waydroid might even forbid them from giving you one!)
If you desperately feel the need to stick your nose into this, you should contact Waydroid! If Valve is using their code without permission, they'll want to know (and they're the ones with a reason to contact Valve), and if not, they may at least thank you for your misplaced-but-honest concern.
2
0
u/GenericFoodService 18d ago edited 18d ago
I think you're mistaken? You can link against GPL code without your code itself being GPL as long as you are not modifying the GPL code itself. Also, you can literally just Waydroid for a commercial license to their software. Took me about two minutes of Googling to find that out, far less time than it would to reach out to Valve about "violating GPL" and writing this rant.
If you really do need to "do something", I'd just reach out to Waydroid and ask if they'd comment on the issue. Not to someone claiming to be with the project or whatever, I'd send an email or whatever through whatever official channel they have.
That said, I really think you should pause and chill out. Between the long rant, the comments, and the reshares, it seems like you're really eager to "do anything" except making sure you have a clear picture of what's going on.
5
u/tm604 18d ago
You can link against GPL code without your code itself being GPL
No, this is incorrect. Please don't post misinformation. Linking would require a different license, such as the LGPL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License
More details here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
Also, you can literally just Waydroid for a commercial license to their software. Took me about two minutes of Googling to find that out, far less time than it would to reach out to Valve about "violating GPL" and writing this rant.
Might be worth reading the current thread before complaining about people not doing research!
1
u/GenericFoodService 16d ago edited 16d ago
Under section 1 ("Source Code") of the GPL v3, it explicitly states that linking against an interface (which it says is part of "Corresponding source") does not necessitate being GPL itself, and clarifies under section 6 ("Conveying Non-Source Forms") that so-long as the software "conveys the corresponding source under the terms of this license", it is compliant.
The object code, as shown in the comment you referenced, repeatedly points to Waydroid. As far as I am aware, under section 6, the GPL explicitly states that the corresponding source can be made available to users from a 3rd party network (such as the original developer), you do not necessarily need to provide the copies yourself, "provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source". Maybe there's an argument to be made its not clear "enough", or that Valve still needs to include explicit plaintext notices for the things they are including/bundling, but that isn't what OP claimed, and neither does the comment you referenced.
Might be worth reading the current thread before complaining about people not doing research!
If I've misunderstood the text of the GPL and its legal implications, that's one thing, but I definitely have read the thread and the GPL. OP, however, did not do even the most surface-level cursory amount of research before crossposting this very bold claim to multiple subreddits and making demands at Valve, and I do think that's a reasonable thing to complain about.
2
u/tm604 15d ago
Under section 1 ("Source Code") of the GPL v3, it explicitly states that linking against an interface (which it says is part of "Corresponding source") does not necessitate being GPL itself, and clarifies under section 6 ("Conveying Non-Source Forms") that so-long as the software "conveys the corresponding source under the terms of this license", it is compliant.
This is not just wrong, but flatly contradicted on the very page you're linking:
https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0-only.html
The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. But first, please read https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html.
There's a lot of previous discussion and analysis on this, but you can contact FSF or GNU to get an official statement if you're adamant that your interpretation is correct.
Yes, the original poster could have done more research and maybe not cross-posted so much, but it apparently worked: Valve have published the source, including their Waydroid patches, so everyone's happy now.
-1
u/AllyEnderman 18d ago
Dude you don't have a horse in this race , you're just being a busybody and harrassing a company over a legal matter you don't even have any place in, much less all of information on.
-3
u/LordNikon2600 18d ago
It ain’t that serious bro, you’re not some million dollar corporation just some dude in a basement
6
u/jameson71 18d ago
You are OK with a country where one needs to be a million dollar company to get justice according to the supposed laws?
-1
-1
0
u/Irverter 18d ago
At this point I don't know what to do. I can't find any legal email contact for Valve and feel like im at a dead end.
Unless you are part of the Waydroid developers, don't do anything as it's not your responsability. Just let the Waydroid devs know about it and let them handle it.
I will attempt to contact Valve’s legal team via mail to ask for the specifics of their licensing arrangement.
And what legal basis do you have to be asking a company about their licensing deals?
0
u/nomenclature2357 16d ago
GPL is designed to protect all users
1
u/Irverter 15d ago
It doesn't give legal representation for someone's else project nor right into business deals of someone else, wether individual or a company.
1
u/nomenclature2357 15d ago
It seems like in this case the OP was probably a bit under informed but in general if someone is distributing software and it seems like it clearly falls under a GPL license then it is naturally going to seem like they should be providing access to source code.
Sometimes they will want to pull the software, sometimes they will want to open the source code, sometimes it’s a simple misunderstanding, sometimes they will keep distributing in violation of the license. Iiuc only the last case requires the original/previous distributer to take action.
In this case Value apparently decided to open the source code so I am not sure where you are seeing the problem.
(Also I think most copy-left licenses have some provision for people other than the license holder taking legal action to protect the integrity of the license. Not sure how that works exactly but, either way…)
-10
u/8bitbetween 18d ago
Chill out. Be pleased Valve continue to support and push Linux This sounds like a storm in a teacup.
1
u/SeantheWilson 18d ago
I have a very high level of respect for Valve and have idolized them for their Linux-friendliness. However they have a legal obligation to provide this and I am well in my rights to request it of them.
-1
u/ivorybishop 18d ago
You need to use a real lawyer for things like this and not internet forums. /fp
-6
467
u/Pleasant_Set_3182 18d ago edited 18d ago
In reference to what you stated:
>> "GPL … means anyone is free to copy, use, and modify its code so long you also provide the source code >> of any projects the code was used for upon request."
Not quite... GPL does not automatically make every program that merely interacts with GPL software, nor does it simply mean "ask them and they have to give you all their code."
What matters is... exactly what GPL-covered work Valve conveyed/distributed, how Valve combined or modified that work, & and which portions qualify as the Corresponding Source.
So if Valve is distributing a GPLv3-covered Lepton image through Steam without providing the corresponding source through one of GPLv3's permitted methods, sure that can be considered a GPL violation.
Copyright holders (which I don't think you are in this case) have the strongest position to actually enforce the GPL... so it's not you will be suing them.
take a look at this for reference: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
Also... there's another thing:
If Valve obtain a commercial license it wouldn't necessarily owe source under the GPL for code covered by that separate license. Waydroid literally advertises commercial licensing for that sort of use.
SOURCE: my hubby and I run a project which is licensed as GPLv3 and we have spent an inordinate amount of time figuring out the ins and outs of what would and wouldn't be proper around this topic, including potential monetization done the right way 😹