Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

Raymond Martin wrote:
> On Friday 07 August 2009 09:51:05 you wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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:
>>
>
> Which was so obviously GPL to begin with. And was obviously intended
> to be completely under the GPL in any release.
>

That's true, Bob always said he only had no time to open the source,
because of his journeys, but as far as I remember he accepted the GPL
... a funny situation :D. So Raymond was allowed to decompile the software.

Anyway, this didn't change the fact about the law we were discussing ;).

>> "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."
>>
>
> Previous actions on his part show it was GPL already.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> You would be very hard pressed to prove in a court that the code wasn't
> intended to be under GPL in the first place. This is a very important point
> you are jumping over. There was a definite intention for ALL the code to be
> GPL, not just the old portion that was already out. There was NO intention for
> the MODS to be proprietary. There is a trail of public evidence of this.
>
> So this idea that you cannot decompile something INTENDED to be
> GPL in the first place is moot. In law it is called circumstances. They
> must be considered.
>
> Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF says:
>
> "But most proprietary software companies want more power than copyright alone
> gives them. These companies say their software is ``licensed'' to consumers,
> but the license contains obligations that copyright law knows nothing about.
> Software you're not allowed to understand, for example, often requires you to
> agree not to decompile it. Copyright law doesn't prohibit decompilation, the
> prohibition is just a contract term you agree to as a condition of getting
> the software when you buy the product under shrink wrap in a store, or accept
> a ``clickwrap license'' on line. Copyright is just leverage for taking even
> more away from users."
>
> Indicates right there that there is nothing prohibiting decompilation, unless
> you agree in a contract not to do it. GPL is a license and there is no
> agreement to not decompile GPL programs because there is no contractual
> agreement not to do so. Thus, in the present case, decompilation does not
> result in any violation at all. All the code was and is GPL, decompiling a
> fully GPL program cannot result in any wrongdoing. Distributing it neither.
>
> Raymond
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>
>

-- 
Secret of Tux: http://images.wallaceandgromit.com/user_uploads/forum_thumbnails/5/75/355.jpg
"Gromit bit me" says HMV dog: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/GomitHMVPA_468x319.jpg
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev