Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:12:44 you wrote:
> >
> > That woulds not be a violation at all. It is/was all under GPL.
>
> Wrong. Because Bob violated the GPL, right?

By not putting a licence file or giving the source. You put a license
and provide the source. No more violation.

> Remember? I'm pretty sure
> I'm telling you something you already knew here, but he DIDN'T release
> the source code for the preview release. He SHOULD have but he DIDN'T,
> so you never got the GPL'd source with the preview mods in it. This
> put him in violation of jMusic's license but it did NOT magically
> grant you copyright, copyleft or copyanything to the code he should
> have released, but didn't.

Wrong. There is nothing in the GPL that says you cannot add the license
before you distribute. Think about it. You get some GPL code and change the
license to add in another copyright in addition to the original, as per GPL
rules. Where does this text that you are adding in come from? Where
does the license header come from? It does not matter. You can change
the whole header to look different, get it from other files, and so on, as
long as the GPL preamble and the copyrights are there. So adding in
headers is no violation as long as you know the code is GPL.

>
> >> Well sorry but Bob's violation of the jMusic authors' copyright
> >> ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT entitle you to commit such a violation of Bob's
> >> own copyright: Until and unless you have Bob's preview source files
> >> with GPL headers all present and correct, you don't have a license
> >> for
> >> the mods in that code.
> >
> > Wrong. Bob's copyright is a copyleft, fool. Show any proof that
> > there is
> > something against decompiling GPL code. You cannot find any.
>
> This isn't about decompiling GPL code. Its about decompiling a binary
> that was released, without source, in violation of the GPL. (Please
> tell me you remember that Bob was VIOLATING the GPL? Please?). He
> SHOULD have licensed his modifications under the GPL but he DIDN'T
> (remember?) which means you don't have a license for the modifications.

Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code. That is
the viral nature of GPL. End of story. Not putting out source or including
the license files does not make his changes/code not be GPL. I think you
are thinking too much in the vain of convention copyrights. The code is
automatically GPL by way of use of other GPL code. It no longer is some
independent proprietary code solely belonging to the original copyright
holder once mixed together.

Raymond

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Jul 29 08:15:05 2009