29 Jul
2009
29 Jul
'09
12:50 a.m.
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:39:16 you wrote:
On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:38, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
I am making complete sense and you just cannot find anything in the GPL
that says otherwise.
Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:12:44 you wrote:
By not putting a licence file or giving the source. You put a license
and provide the source. No more violation.
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. That
woulds not be a violation at all. It is/was all under GPL.
Wrong. Because Bob violated the GPL, right? 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.