6 Aug
2009
6 Aug
'09
1:01 p.m.
On 6 Aug 2009, at 15:05, Raymond Martin wrote:
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. 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.
No. Because the GPL is (IANAL, but most of them seem to think) a
license not a contract. The distributing party is VIOLATING the GPL by
their own actions.
Here's Eben Moglen on the subject:
"There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of
infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are
entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent
infringing distribution, and—where appropriate— attorneys’ fees. A
defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL-licensed code in its
own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution
that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product
further. That’s a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL-
licensed program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits."
~ Simon