[LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

[drew Roberts]

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.
>
> Raymond

all the best,

drew