On Friday 07 August 2009 06:51:08 Paul Davis wrote:
That's nice, but I would like for someone to show me how this pertains to the
current line of discussion. The fact is that code does become GPL once you
mix it with other GPL code. Whether you choose to break the promise you
are making when you distribute it is another thing. That promise is something
that is made with the license automatically whenever the application is
distributed, just one thing a license can do that a contract would need a
bilateral agreement for.
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?
The terms would be the same as they were in the past. Thus, there is
nothing stopping the distribution of the code regardless of how it is
obtained in this one particular case. It can be forced open in this case
because it would result in code that was intended to be under the GPL in
the first place, not some other license. There is a whole trail of evidence
that can easily show it was and is GPL. The code could hardly be considered
An extensive look at license vs. contract for the GPL is found in
Enforcing the GPL - http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf
Linux-audio-dev mailing list