The GPLv2 is organized into 3 sections:
Section 1 deals with reproduction and distribution of verbatim copies of the Program’s source code.
Section 2 deals with modifying the source code.
Section 3 deals with reproduction and distribution of binary code.
Not defending TX or anything, but if you take the GPLv2 license strictly:
Under a plain reading of section 2, if the licensee does not modify the original GPL-licensed program, the Modification Condition and all of its explanatory provisions in
section 2 simply do not apply. That leaves sections 1 and 3, governing rights to copy and reproduce in binary or source code forms, neither of which contain any language whatsoever to the effect that merely combining independent works with GPL-licensed code renders the independent works subject to GPL as well.
Even assuming, that section 2 regulates the licensee even in the absence of modifications, the GPL's inheritance requirements in section 2 apply only to "works based on the Program".
The GPL defines a “work based on the Program” as
“any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it ….”
This definition can only sensibly be construed to mean derivative works as defined by applicable copyright law, and not merely collective works or compilations.
Under US law, a derivative work is defined under the US Copyright Act as a work that is:
“based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
"Simply combining a copyrighted work with another work does not create a derivative work. The original copyrighted work must be modified in some way. The resulting derivative work must itself 'represent an original work of authorship.' So if the licensee doesn’t modify the original GPL-licensed program, but merely runs it, he is not creating a derivative work." The Unreasonable Fear of Infection, Lawrence Rosen, 2001.
So if the new work contains the Program or a copy of it, but nothing more – no modifications, recastings or transformations of that original Program – then such work is the functional equivalent of pasting postcard art (linking GPL-licensed code) with ceramic tile (proprietary or non-GPL code).
TL;DR: As long as there are no modifications to that GPL-licensed program, TX does not have to apply GPLv2 on their work, but have to state that they used the GPL-licensed program.
Therefore I'm voting for yes and no, because if they modified it, they should abide to GPL – if not, they are OK (with GPL, not with the priacy stuff, that's another topic).
But as long as TX doesn't provide proof that they didn't modify the copied code...
