Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

On 7 Aug 2009, at 12:55, Raymond Martin wrote:

> On Friday 07 August 2009 06:51:08 Paul Davis wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorf<ralf.mardorf@email-addr-hidden-dsl.net
>> >
> wrote:
>>> Chris Cannam wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martin<laseray@email-addr-hidden>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> What possible counter-argument can there be left?
>>>>
>>>> http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (same guy you just cited, explaining
>>>> why you're wrong)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>> "The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of
>>> proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is
>>> simply
>>> wrong."
>>
>> For emphasis, I just want to paste that sentence (and the following
>> one) again for Raymond, with attribution:
>>
>> Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF: "The claim that a GPL violation
>> could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has
>> wrongfully
>> included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in
>> the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on
>> altered terms. "
>
> [...]
> Perhaps you should read that paragraph again in the context of how
> this
> whole discussion came about. Known free software, with a history of
> being
> free, distributed under the GPL with the source code in the past,
> was not
> being distributed with the source code at a point by the very same
> people.
> So where would the altered terms be if the binary was decompiled and
> source
> distributed for the application under consideration?

This whole strand of the discussion came about because you had
threatened to release a decompilation of Bob's ***MODIFIED*** preview
release and I said:

  "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."

I wrote that sentence quite carefully but here it is again with some
emphasis on the pertinent words:

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.

> [...]
> An extensive look at license vs. contract for the GPL is found in
> Enforcing the GPL - http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf

Yes. The Moglen quote we're now discussing appears on page 15. (And
yes that document discusses the possibility that one day someone might
persuade a court that the GPL is actually a contract, but walk before
you try to run eh?)

~ Simon

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Aug 7 20:15:02 2009