On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorf<[email protected]> wrote: > Chris Cannam wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martin<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What possible counter-argument can there be left? >>> >> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (same guy you just cited, explaining >> why you're wrong) >> >> >> Chris > > "The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of > proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply > wrong."
For emphasis, I just want to paste that sentence (and the following one) again for Raymond, with attribution: Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF: "The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. " _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
