Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Nigel Feltham wrote: > [...] >> The only permission you have to make any extra copies of busybox is that >> provided by the GPL in exchange for following it's rules which specify >> that source has to be provided. > > But that's pure license/contract breach claim, not copyright > infringement. Consider also > > http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/CaseDetails.cfm?cID=437
It's both - copying software without permission is a copyright infringement and the only thing that gives you permission to do any copying of GPL software that isn't provided as part of normal copyright law is the GPL licence. If you breach the terms of the license then you no longer have permission to distribute copies of the software (other than on media provided by the copyright holder) so are infringing copyright law as well. This is the main reason companies who breach the terms of the GPL are normally so quick to resolve the situation (where just letting customers know where to get the source is enough) - until they comply with the licence they are distributing copies of the software without permission of the copyright holder and just giving customers a link to a sourcecode website is far easier than risking ending up in a copyright infringement court. This is also the main reason SCO chickened out of their attempt to invalidate the GPL - they presumably realised that if the GPL is invalid then they never had permission to distribute the code and had committed mass piracy of every GPL licenced product they've ever distributed. Either the licence is valid and they're complying with it's terms or they're pirates, hard to argue that the licence doesn't exist under those circumstances. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
