Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:38, laseray@email-addr-hidden wrote:

> 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

You are talking complete and utter crap. Goodnight.

_______________________________________________
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 08:15:06 2009