[LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

[laseray at gmail.com]

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:39:16 you wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:38, laseray at gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:12:44 you wrote:
> >>> That woulds not be a violation at all. It is/was all under GPL.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Because Bob violated the GPL, right?
> >
> > By not putting a licence file or giving the source. You put a license
> > and provide the source. No more violation.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Wrong. There is nothing in the GPL that says you cannot add the
> > license
> > before you distribute. Think about it. You get some GPL code and
> > change the
> > license to add in another copyright in addition to the original, as
> > per GPL
> > rules. Where does this text that you are adding in come from? Where
> > does the license header come from? It does not matter. You can change
> > the whole header to look different, get it from other files, and so
> > on, as
> > long as the GPL preamble and the copyrights are there. So adding in
> > headers is no violation as long as you know the code is GPL.
> >
> >>>> 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.
> >
> > Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code. That
> > is
> > the viral nature of GPL. End of story. Not putting out source or
> > including
> > the license files does not make his changes/code not be GPL. I think
> > you
> > are thinking too much in the vain of convention copyrights. The code
> > is
> > automatically GPL by way of use of other GPL code. It no longer is
> > some
> > independent proprietary code solely belonging to the original
> > copyright
> > holder once mixed together.
> >
> > Raymond
>
> You are talking complete and utter crap. Goodnight.

I am making complete sense and you just cannot find anything in the GPL
that says otherwise.

Raymond