LG Hamburg zum „complete corresponding source code“ nach der GPLv2

In der Firmware eines Medienplayers fand sich unter der GPLv2 (englisch / deutsch) veröffentlichte Open Source Software („OSS“). Diese Firmware wurde auf der Website des Herstellers zum Download angeboten, dies aber nicht im Quelltext, obwohl Ziff. 3 der GPLv2 unmissverständlich ist:

„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.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

Dies missfiel dem Rechteinhaber, der – nachdem zuvor bereits eine Unterlassungserklärung abgegeben worden war – den Hersteller auf Zahlung einer Vertragsstrafe vor dem LG Hamburg (Urt. v. 14.6.2013 – 308 O 10/13) in Anspruch nahm, dies völlig zu Recht, woran auch das LG Hamburg keinerlei Zweifel ließ:

Weiterlesen