6 Aug
2009
6 Aug
'09
3:06 p.m.
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:05:17 Raymond Martin wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts
wrote:
Nope, sorry, I get your theory but disagree. (I think RMS agrees with me here
as I pointed to in another post.) The license can say what it likes but the
license is not the law. One can ignore the license, not accept it and break
the law instead.
Then the author of the included code has a legal remedy since copyright law
has been broken.. They can go to court and the courts will deal with the
issue accordingly.
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond
Martin wrote:
The code is GPL once you distribute it mixed with other GPL code and it
still can be put out under another license by the original author. So you
are splitting hairs where the context of the discussion needs to be
considered.
It was understood about an original authors copyrights. Nonetheless, any
code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL
regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another
license.
An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come under
GPL, the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the GPL
into force. The combining is considered a modified version of the original
which must be distributed under the same license.
See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case). Read the
sentence "Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or any work
based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing, and or
modifying the Program or works based on it.
End of story. This was all in the context of distribution.
Perhaps this was not
clear.
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. Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically
puts the
code under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by their own
actions. Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come into
effect.
Only if you don't intend to break copyright law must you GPL your code. It is
not something that the GPL can accomplish in and of itself. The law does not
give the license that power to my understanding of it. The author must GPL
the combined code, the original is obviously still GPL as per the original
license.
If they want to distribute their original code under a different license
that can also be done.
Raymond
all the best,
drew