Raymond Martin wrote: > On Friday 07 August 2009 09:51:05 you wrote: > >> 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<ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net >>>> >>>> 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: >> > > Which was so obviously GPL to begin with. And was obviously intended > to be completely under the GPL in any release. >
That's true, Bob always said he only had no time to open the source, because of his journeys, but as far as I remember he accepted the GPL ... a funny situation :D. So Raymond was allowed to decompile the software. Anyway, this didn't change the fact about the law we were discussing ;). >> "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." >> > > Previous actions on his part show it was GPL already. > > >> 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. >> > > You would be very hard pressed to prove in a court that the code wasn't > intended to be under GPL in the first place. This is a very important point > you are jumping over. There was a definite intention for ALL the code to be > GPL, not just the old portion that was already out. There was NO intention for > the MODS to be proprietary. There is a trail of public evidence of this. > > So this idea that you cannot decompile something INTENDED to be > GPL in the first place is moot. In law it is called circumstances. They > must be considered. > > Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF says: > > "But most proprietary software companies want more power than copyright alone > gives them. These companies say their software is ``licensed'' to consumers, > but the license contains obligations that copyright law knows nothing about. > Software you're not allowed to understand, for example, often requires you to > agree not to decompile it. Copyright law doesn't prohibit decompilation, the > prohibition is just a contract term you agree to as a condition of getting > the software when you buy the product under shrink wrap in a store, or accept > a ``clickwrap license'' on line. Copyright is just leverage for taking even > more away from users." > > Indicates right there that there is nothing prohibiting decompilation, unless > you agree in a contract not to do it. GPL is a license and there is no > agreement to not decompile GPL programs because there is no contractual > agreement not to do so. Thus, in the present case, decompilation does not > result in any violation at all. All the code was and is GPL, decompiling a > fully GPL program cannot result in any wrongdoing. Distributing it neither. > > Raymond > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > > -- Secret of Tux: http://images.wallaceandgromit.com/user_uploads/forum_thumbnails/5/75/355.jpg "Gromit bit me" says HMV dog: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/GomitHMVPA_468x319.jpg _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev