On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:12:44 Simon Jenkins wrote: > 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.
Where do you see this breaking down? Let's take a few made up examples: I write a program from scratch. I compile it and release the binary only but claim the program is under the GPL. Is it? Can anyone force me to give them the source? Can anyone "de-compile" the binary and release that source under the GPL? Say instead, I start with a the GPL source to a program you wrote, I modify it and release the binary under the GPL. When asked for the source I refuse and possibly claim the dog ate it. Is my modified program under the GPL? Does my making the claim about the dog matter at all? Since I claim the binary is GPL, can you legally "de-compile" my released binary and put appropriate GPL notices on the resulting source? Are there any other cases that need to be considered? all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
