On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:38, [email protected] wrote: > On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:12:44 you wrote: >>> >>> That woulds not be a violation at all. It is/was all under GPL. >> >> Wrong. Because Bob violated the GPL, right? > > By not putting a licence file or giving the source. You put a license > and provide the source. No more violation. > >> Remember? I'm pretty sure >> I'm telling you something you already knew here, but he DIDN'T >> release >> the source code for the preview release. He SHOULD have but he >> DIDN'T, >> so you never got the GPL'd source with the preview mods in it. This >> put him in violation of jMusic's license but it did NOT magically >> grant you copyright, copyleft or copyanything to the code he should >> have released, but didn't. > > Wrong. There is nothing in the GPL that says you cannot add the > license > before you distribute. Think about it. You get some GPL code and > change the > license to add in another copyright in addition to the original, as > per GPL > rules. Where does this text that you are adding in come from? Where > does the license header come from? It does not matter. You can change > the whole header to look different, get it from other files, and so > on, as > long as the GPL preamble and the copyrights are there. So adding in > headers is no violation as long as you know the code is GPL. > >> >>>> Well sorry but Bob's violation of the jMusic authors' copyright >>>> ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT entitle you to commit such a violation of Bob's >>>> own copyright: Until and unless you have Bob's preview source files >>>> with GPL headers all present and correct, you don't have a license >>>> for >>>> the mods in that code. >>> >>> Wrong. Bob's copyright is a copyleft, fool. Show any proof that >>> there is >>> something against decompiling GPL code. You cannot find any. >> >> This isn't about decompiling GPL code. Its about decompiling a binary >> that was released, without source, in violation of the GPL. (Please >> tell me you remember that Bob was VIOLATING the GPL? Please?). He >> SHOULD have licensed his modifications under the GPL but he DIDN'T >> (remember?) which means you don't have a license for the >> modifications. > > Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code. That > is > the viral nature of GPL. End of story. Not putting out source or > including > the license files does not make his changes/code not be GPL. I think > you > are thinking too much in the vain of convention copyrights. The code > is > automatically GPL by way of use of other GPL code. It no longer is > some > independent proprietary code solely belonging to the original > copyright > holder once mixed together. > > Raymond
You are talking complete and utter crap. Goodnight. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
