linuxaudio.org

On 7 Aug 2009, at 12:55, Raymond Martin wrote:
> On Friday 07 August 2009 06:51:08 Paul Davis wrote:

quoted text
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorf> >

> wrote:

>>> Chris Cannam wrote:

>>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martin

>>>> 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.
> [...]

quoted text
> 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

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev