[LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

[Simon Jenkins]

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.mardorf at alice-dsl.net 
>> >
> wrote:
>>> Chris Cannam wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martin<laseray at gmail.com>  
>>>> 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.

> [...]
> 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