6 Aug
2009
6 Aug
'09
8:30 p.m.
Chris Cannam wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond
Martin<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of
proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply
wrong."
Aha, so it's not allowed to take this proprietary code and make it open
source, but a court is allowed to prohibit the copyright holders to
distribute their proprietary code as long it includes GPL'd code, while
they don't stick to the GPL.
For Bob and Raymond this means. At the time, when Bob distributed his
binary application without the source code, a court could have forbidden
him to do so and Raymond wasn't allowed to open the source of Bob's
application, even while Bob violated against the GPL.
But now Bob and Raymond are both right ;), because Bob opens the source
code :)?!
Ralf
What possible counter-argument can there be
left?
http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (same guy you just cited, explaining
why you're wrong)
Chris