[LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

[Simon Jenkins]

On 29 Jul 2009, at 02:29, laseray at gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:32:03 you wrote:
>> On 29 Jul 2009, at 00:43, laseray at gmail.com wrote:
>>>> 5) You are giving GPL and FSF a bad name
>>>
>>> Oh, piss off. The way I am doing it, to shame him, is a tactic used
>>
>> by
>>
>>> GPL legal defender organizations.
>>
>> You went beyond that. You threatened a "tit-for-tat" copyright
>> violation of Bob's preview release and made a public offer, on this
>> list, to send its decompiled source to anyone who was interested.
>
> That woulds not be a violation at all. It is/was all under GPL.

Wrong. Because Bob violated the GPL, right? Remember? I'm pretty sure  
I'm telling you something you already knew here, but he DIDN'T release  
the source code for the preview release. He SHOULD have but he DIDN'T,  
so you never got the GPL'd source with the preview mods in it. This  
put him in violation of jMusic's license but it did NOT magically  
grant you copyright, copyleft or copyanything to the code he should  
have released, but didn't.
>
>> Well sorry but Bob's violation of the jMusic authors' copyright
>> ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT entitle you to commit such a violation of Bob's
>> own copyright: 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.
>
> Wrong. Bob's copyright is a copyleft, fool. Show any proof that  
> there is
> something against decompiling GPL code. You cannot find any.

This isn't about decompiling GPL code. Its about decompiling a binary  
that was released, without source, in violation of the GPL. (Please  
tell me you remember that Bob was VIOLATING the GPL? Please?). He  
SHOULD have licensed his modifications under the GPL but he DIDN'T  
(remember?) which means you don't have a license for the modifications.