29 Jul
2009
29 Jul
'09
12:12 a.m.
On 29 Jul 2009, at 02:29, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
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.
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:32:03 you wrote:
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.
On 29 Jul 2009, at 00:43, laseray(a)gmail.com
wrote:
by
That woulds not be a violation at all. It is/was all under GPL. 5) You
are giving GPL and FSF a bad name
Oh, piss off. The way I am doing it, to shame him, is a tactic used GPL legal defender organizations.
You went beyond that. You threatened a "tit-for-tat" copyright
violation of Bob's preview release and made a public offer, on this
list, to send its decompiled source to anyone who was interested. 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.