5 Aug
2009
5 Aug
'09
11:05 p.m.
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:18 laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
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.
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.
However, having the binary claim to be GPL but not releasing the needed source
does not stop it from being under the GPL to my initial understanding.
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