Do download sites violate GNU GPL programs?

[Oleksandr Gavenko]

On 2010-12-14 18:23, Ben Tilly wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Lior W.<opensource.*.nwo at neverbox.com>  wrote:
>> VirtualDub is an example of a popular GNU GPL program for which only
>> binaries are hosted by download sites (except the official site).
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites
>> (in case it's also relevant for the older GPLv2) states it's only valid
>> to not also host the source code) if they "provide clear instructions
>> people can follow to obtain the source." Well, they don't.
>>
>> Moreover, I would bet they also don't "take care to make sure that the
>> source remains available for as long as you distribute the object code."
>> If the official site were to dissapear, does anyone here really think
>> they'll stop hosting VirtualDub? After all, download sites are known for
>> keeping files that have lost their official sites years (if not a decade)
>> ago. They usually don't even have a unique category for GNU GPL
>> softwares, which could have put them under special supervision.
>
>  From your description, they are violating the license.  The correct
> thing to do about it is to contact the authors of VirtualDub, and let
> them know.  If they are bothered by it, the proper thing for those
> authors to do would be to politely contact the download sites, explain
> the GPL, and ask them to start following the GPL.  Which should be
> fairly easy for the download sites.
>
How about muddle authors?

Check http://download.cnet.com/VirtualDub/3000-2194_4-11569667.html
This upload to CNET was maked by Avery Lee, who is author of VirtualDub.
(But I don't know how about authentic of this info).

You can found link to http://www.virtualdub.org/ by clicking text
"See full specifications" or by clicking text "From Avery Lee:".
And next you can found sources.

I know that author can do anything with his work, but site page say:

   VirtualDub is a video capture and processing utility licensed under
   the GNU General Public License (GPL).

but such statement is false:

   provide clear instructions people can follow to obtain the source

Another problem that I see is harm nature of current business
model of some sites which make dumb cloning. Compare:

   http://avery-lee.software.informer.com/
   http://fileroad.com/details/avery-lee-virtualdub/249
   http://www.sixfiles.com/dbase/files/avery-lee-virtualdub.html

If original source publish software correctly cloning bots
can violate GPL.

> I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.  However this fits
> with the advice given in
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReportingViolation
Good link!

-- 
Best regards!