6 Aug
2009
6 Aug
'09
10:59 a.m.
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote:
Again, this was about some app that was already distributed.
Again, you were clear on the distributed part. In a later part I did some of
the search to find the pages mentioned above.
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:05:41 drew Roberts
wrote:
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.
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:18
laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not clear. Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code
makes it GPL code.
I don't think this is correct. It would only mean that if he were not to
GPL the code he would be in violation of the original author's copyrights
(this is a generic he here and I am not speaking to this particular case
as I have not followed this closely enough.) If he did not want to GPL
his own code, he could stop distribution, work out another license with
the original author or any number of other things surely. He would still
have the already existing copyright violations to face should the
original author choose to persue them though. 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.
If I get the time, I seem to remember some FSF pages that disagree with
this and point rather to the thoughts I posted above but I am snowed
under at the moment.
Raymond
all the best,
drew