Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [...] >> So then I guess I _can_ do the following? Yay!: >> >> 1. Make non-GPL program. >> >> 2. Combine a little bit of someone else's GPL program. >> >> 3. Release the _combined work_ under GPL. >> >> 4. Take a bit of my _original work_ from the *original* >> part of said combined work and put it in another >> original work, this time one with NObody else's code >> in it, >> >> 5. Release that closed-source and non-GPL > > You may have problems enforcing (against strangers) your copyright > (and patents) in "_original work_ from the *original* part of said > combined work" after step 3 because in spite of step 5, your work is > still available under the GPL to the entire general public.
Not at all. He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts. That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms corresponding to the version they have acquired access to. If it is the GPLed version, he can enforce the GPL's conditions on the recipients. > Infringes will simply claim that they are GPL licensees and just ask > you what do you want them to do in order to cure whatever > deficiencies in their performance. They may also try to invalidate > the GPL on the grounds of copyright misuse/antitrust... and, on > success, that would cause copyright impotence for all GPL infected > copyrights. That is the usual Terekhov-babble. Since the courts don't show a history of falling for that, nothing one would need to worry about. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
