Ethics (and/or GPL conformity) of obfuscating module source code to hide the fact that not all code has been provided to you?

The FAQ is an excellent explanation of the ground rules for posting modules on d.o., but the original poster referred to a transaction that had nothing to do with d.o.

The better place for the original poster to turn is the Software Freedom Law Center, http://www.softwarefreedom.org/, which might lean on the module author to provide the purchaser with legible source code to his work.

However, they also might tell you this is not a good case to pursue. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#MereAggregation and consider whether the author distributed Drupal at all, and whether a derivative was created (and by whom). The GPL says " If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works." See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851, which discusses the difference between a contract and a license, and touches on the (messy) issues of ownership, control, and the creation of derivative works.

For an example of how GPL isn't viral "upstream," consider the existence of closed binary drivers for Linux (which are linked directly to the kernel by the user) and closed-source applications (which depend on the kernel to run, and are clearly written to work with and require it).

There are plenty of people who claim any Drupal module is automatically a derivative work. However, that is just a claim. People, including lawyers, can claim anything they want, and there aren't any court cases to clear it up, and some persuasive counterarguments.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself: What are you trying to accomplish?

I was logging in to find out if GPL, thus the Drupal modules listed here as such, can be zipped and redistributed as a package as long as no claims to authorship of the modules are made.

As for this specific topic, Open GL, to the best of my knowledge, is intended to be freeware, thus beg notices for donations to the author, not a "shareware" purchase of a license that is supposed to be granted simply because it's GNU/GPL. As VM stated, it's an honor system.
One thing the net provides to ANY author is a "date stamp" and, if saved to one's computer, even an incept file, thus "poorman's copyright" protection, which is still valid to a degree for say verbatim rips et al, though tougher to complain about derivative work.
Here in America there's a "Reasonable Use" code in effect since the late 80's I think it was. Still, if you cite from another work and include a blurb from it into your own, it's safest to "Give credit where credit is due." Work in America copyrighted prior to 1964 is public domain, still it is one thing for me to say discuss and derive from HG Wells' "The Time Machine," ( http://chronic.tempathy.net/page3.php ) and even use Eloi and Morlocks, since names cannot be copyrighted, where it's another thing to rip the whole book, title it "The Time Machine" and put my own name in the author's slot. The latter action is plagiarism.

As the topic concerns, ethics is the question. Is Open GL international?