On 11 October 2014 12:51, Kjetil Matheussen <k.s.matheussen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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! ;-)