Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:11 AM, drew Roberts<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote: Arnout was referring to the case where the software was provided to you under something other than the GPL, violating someone else's license in the process. In fact, you agreed with him in another message you posted only six minutes before that one. I think that having come in late to this thorny discussion, you're tangling up two different debates: * if someone provides software to me under the GPL but doesn't do a proper job of complying with its requirements, am I at liberty to fix that in my own redistribution of it? -- yes, and this is presumably what you're answering above * if someone provides software to me that is _not_ apparently under the GPL, but it turns out to contain GPL'd code and so should have been under the GPL, am I at liberty to "fix" that by assuming my rights under the GPL, obtaining the source code (perhaps covertly) and redistributing that? -- no, not at all, and this is what Arnout and I were referring to in this thread and what your previous email appeared to agree with The second question becomes broadly irrelevant here if we are prepared to accept Bob did convey his intention that the Impro-Visor code be GPL'd, but Arnout and I were responding to the blanket "use of GPL code makes it GPL" (which would imply the second question above). Chris