On 01/28/2014 11:03 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
Do you think their "experienced legal team" is right?
In short - of course not.
Addressing only GPLv2.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
'*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. However, parties
who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will
not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in
full compliance.
'*6.* Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions
on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not
responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.'
If they add clauses - they have essentially lost any right to distribute
it under the GPL - and are in exactly the same position as if they strip
the license and put (c) foocon - all rights reserved.
The recipient of such code - if it was originally licensed as GPL gains
a further license from the source, and can do whatever they wish. (they
are required to fix the license before distributing)
If there is original code distributed under this license - it's fine.
(in principle it's a violation of the licences copyright - but that's a
separate matter).
If you get 'mixed' code - then you cannot distribute it without getting
them to fix their license.
In principle, action can be taken against them by any contributor to the
GPL work in question.
Exactly what form that action will take, and prospects of success will vary.
