On 7 Aug 2009, at 12:55, Raymond Martin wrote: > On Friday 07 August 2009 06:51:08 Paul Davis wrote: >> 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. " > > [...] > Perhaps you should read that paragraph again in the context of how > this > whole discussion came about. Known free software, with a history of > being > free, distributed under the GPL with the source code in the past, > was not > being distributed with the source code at a point by the very same > people. > So where would the altered terms be if the binary was decompiled and > source > distributed for the application under consideration?
This whole strand of the discussion came about because you had threatened to release a decompilation of Bob's ***MODIFIED*** preview release and I said: "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." I wrote that sentence quite carefully but here it is again with some emphasis on the pertinent words: 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. > [...] > An extensive look at license vs. contract for the GPL is found in > Enforcing the GPL - http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf Yes. The Moglen quote we're now discussing appears on page 15. (And yes that document discusses the possibility that one day someone might persuade a court that the GPL is actually a contract, but walk before you try to run eh?) ~ Simon _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
