On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Ian Stirling <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04.08.2013 17:40, Joseph Heenan wrote: > >> Still, albeit probably not violating the GPL, removing the original >> copyright statements does feel very wrong, but I have no idea what law >> if any it violates. >> >> Joseph > > > As I understand it - it means your code isn't licensed. (GPLV2) > > '4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except > as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, > modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically > terminate your rights under this License.' > > '0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a > notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the > terms of this General Public License' > > If you modify it, and remove the copyright - you have no licence to the > subsequent code - even if you don't distribute it, making the distribution > clause irrelevant.
now why the fuck didn't his defense lawyer spot that at the time, and have the case thrown out, on the basis that goldman sachs were criminally infringing copyright?? they even *said* in court that the two identical pieces of code were held up, side-by-side, one criminally-infringing of copyright by having the original authors copyright removed, and the original showing the correct authors. l.
