Sorry, cut and pasted the address incorrectly. Randy Kramer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This sort of claim is just plain wrong. The GPL is a license that the > owner of the copyright provides to another person. If you create a > deriviative work, then this work is covered by the GPL if and only > if you as the creator decide to issue that license. IANAL I think maybe that your intent was that "that license" should read "that derivative work"? I mean what you are saying is that you create a derivative work for your own use, and don't distribute it, then there is no requirement that it be licensed under the GPL, and this is what you go on to say in the rest of your email. And, AFAIK, this is correct. However I have a concern that this creates a loophole -- not a legal loophole, an illegal loophole (AFAIK), but a loophole nevertheless. Let's say I create such a derivative work, and I don't GPL it. But I leave it somewhere (accidentally, with no malice aforethought) where somebody else finds it, with no copyright or GPL notice. Now they take it and use it as is or create a derivative work, and distribute it as a closed source program. What is the status in a case like that? If demonstrated that this is the case, can the "genie be put back in the bottle" so to speak? (Can the closed source derivative work be removed from circulation, be required to be relicensed under the GPL, and any collected fees be required to be returned?) Does the GPL require that the GPL licesnse be referenced even on the private derivative work, something like "this software was derived from a GPL product, and it, or any product derived from it, cannot be distributed except under the terms of the GPL? How could you demonstrate that this is the case? Thanks, Randy Kramer > > Of course if you do NOT issue the license, and then distribute the work, > you have violated the original copyright, but it can never be the case > that something is automatically covered by the GPL. > > Furthermore, if you create the deriviative work solely for your own use, > and do not distribute it, then there is absolutely no reason for you to > issue any license to anyone for the deriviative work.
