11 Oct
2014
11 Oct
'14
5:52 p.m.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Neil C Smith <neil(a)neilcsmith.net> wrote:
On 11 October 2014 12:51, Kjetil Matheussen
<k.s.matheussen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I can understand you are very angry about this. Does GPL
really allow someone to use someone else's GPL code,
release it, and pretend everything was written by the original
person?
Unlike what Peder said above, no it doesn't.
"5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
...
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it,
and giving a relevant date."
That's from v3, but v2 has a similar statement IIRC.
v3 also allows to add the following optional terms
"d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
authors of the material; or
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade
names, trademarks, or service marks; or"
which would allow Fons to protect his name and "zita", though I guess
not retrospectively.
Please don't use this as an excuse to turn away from the open-source
ethos - there are many pros, if a few con(artists)s! ;-)
Thanks for making that clear. Fons wrote it too though, as you quoted,
but it seems like I had forgotten that part when I was finished reading
his message.
>
> On 10-10-2014 21:14, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
And as a final topping on the cake, that whole crappy
thing is
presented as if I were the author of it all. No mention at all
that things have been modified, and by whom or why. This alone
is a clear violation of the license under which zita-at1 was
released. And whoever did it doesn't even have the courage to
identify him/herself.