>
> On Thursday 06 August 2009 13:06:01 drew Roberts wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:05:17 Raymond Martin wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote:
>
> > > > On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote:
>
> > > > > This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not
>
> > > > > clear.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make someone else's code GPL
> *if* they
>
> > > > don't claim their own code to be GPL.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > In your given context though, you indicate that the code claimed
> to be
>
> > > > GPL which would make it GPL because the author gave a GPL license to
>
> > > > it, not because it contained another author's GPL code.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Now an author *has* to GPL their own code that contains another
>
> > > > author's GPL code *or* be guilty of copyright violations but the
> second
>
> > > > option is available to the first author and the courts will have to
>
> > > > sort it.
>
> > >
>
> > > The code is GPL once you distribute it mixed with other GPL code
> and it
>
> > > still can be put out under another license by the original author.
> So you
>
> > > are splitting hairs where the context of the discussion needs to be
>
> > > considered.
>
> > >
>
> > > It was understood about an original authors copyrights.
> Nonetheless, any
>
> > > code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL
>
> > > regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another
>
> > > license.
>
> > >
>
> > > An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come
> under
>
> > > GPL, the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the
>
> > > GPL into force. The combining is considered a modified version of the
>
> > > original which must be distributed under the same license.
>
> > >
>
> > > See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case).
> Read
>
> > > the sentence "Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or
>
> > > any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this
>
> > > License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
>
> > > distributing, and or modifying the Program or works based on it.
>
> > >
>
> > > End of story.
>
> >
>
> > Nope, sorry, I get your theory but disagree. (I think RMS agrees with me
>
> > here as I pointed to in another post.) The license can say what it likes
>
> > but the license is not the law. One can ignore the license, not
> accept it
>
> > and break the law instead.
>
> >
>
> > Then the author of the included code has a legal remedy since
> copyright law
>
> > has been broken.. They can go to court and the courts will deal with the
>
> > issue accordingly.
>
> >
>
> > > Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically puts the
>
> > > code under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by
> their own
>
> > > actions. Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come
> into
>
> > > effect.
>
> >
>
> > Only if you don't intend to break copyright law must you GPL your
> code. It
>
> > is not something that the GPL can accomplish in and of itself. The
> law does
>
> > not give the license that power to my understanding of it. The
> author must
>
> > GPL the combined code, the original is obviously still GPL as per the
>
> > original license.
>
> >
>
> > > If they want to distribute their original code under a different
> license
>
> > > that can also be done.
>
> Eben Moglen in
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
>
> "Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's
> substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that
> the GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the
> GPL can't be enforced because users haven't ``accepted'' it.
>
> This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not
> require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use,
> inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those
> activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software
> firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual
> provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their
> works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are
> rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover
> those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software
> from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only
> obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only
> needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one
> can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that
> anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After
> all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the
> license text, so everyone is fully informed."
>
> Check that line near the end: "no one can ever redistribute without a
> license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd
> software intended to accept the GPL". Now this is a lawyer for free
> software saying almost exactly
>
> what I have. The assumption is that if you distribute the software
> then you
>
> are intending to accept the license by doing so. Thus the license
> applies even
>
> if you are breaking some rule or law regardless of ignorance or intention.
>
> If that is not clear enough I do not know what is. Show me how this
> leading
>
> legal representative for free software has got it wrong! The evidence is
>
> clear. You distribute it, then you are accepting the license and it
> applies
>
> to your code.
>
> What possible counter-argument can there be left?
>
> Raymond
>