No, if you receive a copy of a GPL'd program, you have the right to
modify it, and as long you release it under the GPL, you have complied
in full with the requirements of the license (the GPL) under which you
have received the program. There is no "copyright" violation here. GPL
is about freedom. Telling someone they have to list someone as an author
would take away some of that freedom.
Recall why the original BSD license was GPL-incompatible: advertising
clause. From the fsf.org web site GPL FAQ:
"Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the GPL?
Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL;
namely, the requirement on advertisements of the program. The GPL
states:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise
of the rights granted herein.
The advertising clause provides just such a further restriction, and
thus is GPL-incompatible.
The revised BSD license does not have the advertising clause, which
eliminates the problem."
Another example from recent history is the XFree86 Project
(www.xfree86.org), which modified their license because they wanted to
ensure they would always be listed as the authors. RMS correctly noted
this license would be GPL-incompatible, and that is why most
distributions have switched to x.org (distributed under the GPL)
>From the XFree86.org website:
"Why did you modify your license?
David Dawes, the current President of the XFree86 Project, gave the
Project's reasons when he announced the revision on 29 January 2004.
He noted that the main reason was to ensure that the Project and its
developers receive their full due for what they have given freely away
these past 12 years.
What is main the difference between 1.0 and 1.1?
The main difference is that both the source code and the binary
redistribution are now explicitly addressed and separated, because the
original 1.0 license was vague in its reference to "the Software".
Traditionally, "Software" in the free software world has meant "source
code" but as our license allows for binary-only (i.e. no source need be
supplied) redistributions. This made the 1.0 license rather unique in
free software, and created a glaring flaw that meant that the licence
notices "may" not always be reproduced in full.
So the new license, unlike the old one, explicitly requires that the
copyright holders and its contributors, are to be acknowledged in the
end user documentation that accompanies redistribution, i.e. the binary
only redistributions. The original problem has now been solved."
It seems really clear that:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise
of the rights granted herein.
ANY, means ANY.
Of course, erasing lists of contributors is considered to be a really
bad thing to do, as in nice and etiquette, but those who receive GPL
software clearly have the legal right to do so.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:51:31 -0600, "AgentM"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > IANAL: I believe there is nothing legally preventing you from doing
> > this
> > and it is permissable under the GPL;
> > it is however considered extremely bad etiquette.
>
> Huh? I am not a lawyer either but I know that Mr. Citek's
> hypothetical situation suggests a copyright violation- no different
> from erasing the publisher's copyright from a book and writing "(c)
> 2005 Mr. Sparkle". It's a lie.
>
> The GPL builds on copyright- it doesn't replace it...
>
> Note that many "open source" projects rely on this behavior to offer
> commercial licensing; for example, MySQL AB (the company) owns the
> copyright and can thus distribute the software with whatever license
> they like, regardless of the GPL. If just anyone could swipe the
> copyright, then anyone could change the license.
>
> Note that copyright is term-limited (whatever that term may be today
> thanks to Sonny Bono).
>
> |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
> AgentM
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWE-LUG mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.cwelug.org/
> http://www.cwelug.org/archives/
> http://www.cwelug.org/mailinglist/
--
Erich Friesen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service
_______________________________________________
CWE-LUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cwelug.org/
http://www.cwelug.org/archives/
http://www.cwelug.org/mailinglist/
