[linux-audio-user] Intellectual Property

Well. After this case I don't want release anything under GPL. We need GPL3 which requires the license and copyright info to be available prior purchase or download. Then people could search for the original software from the original author (the one who has the copyright because the license and copyright cannot be modified). Also, the source code should be made available without an extra request. Now GPL requires that either source is made available or it can be sent upon request. The latter condition should be removed. Also, the original name should be preserved. The names of the borrowed or modified software should be available prior purchasing. For example, Audacity customers should know that Audacity is using free software such as allegro, dlcompat, expat, iAVC, id3lib, libflac, libid3tag, libmad, libnyquist, libogg, libresample, libsamplerate, libsndfile, libvorbis, portaudio, portmixer, soundtouch, and wave++. The guy should list the name Audacity and the whole above list beside his own name. The intellectual property should be respected! Like any scientific paper lists the references, should the free software as well have a "references" section. It could be enough that all copyrights are kept intact, but I would like to see a "references" listing which lists the URLs to the original and other software as well. Everyone of us should also start referencing where we pick up the ideas: journal papers, magazines, webpage, other software, told by a friend, etc. Too many times I see that features are copied from other software, but the software is not credited. E.g., I have invented the "b" feature in Audacity, and if somebody copies the feature to the Sound Forge or elsewhere, I would like to read that the feature was copied from Audacity. Patents are good in this context but they are too expensive for me. We should respect IP some other way, like via good manners. BTW, the guy did not edit the source code, but changed the name in the screenshots with the image editor. This is considered as bad both by advertising officials and by consumer officials because one cannot advertise another product and sell other ("Audacity"). This case shows (from the feedback) that consumers are not able to request good products and are easily fooled. Sad. It also shows people don't think security issues at all. Who want to buy software, executables, from a dishonest person? Regards, Juhana