13 Oct
2014
13 Oct
'14
7:33 p.m.
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 23:41:38 -0400
From: Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
Message-ID:
<CAFa_cKmZ7HBp8FgaL2JJWxzgk7tcR1MqrqWLXe-U-8tOsibkTw(a)mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Philipp ?berbacher <murks(a)tuxfamily.org>
wrote:
Yes, the project name was different, but I think the relevant point was
that all the original copyright headers that Fons had used were not
modified to indicate that the original code had been change.
The "AUTHORS" file still only had Fons's name and contact information,
which is presumably why the user mentioned originally sent email to Fons
and not to JeffG, since Jeff had not left any kind of identifying
information in the project to indicate that even though Fons had
originated some of the code, Fons was not actually involved with that
project at all.
In that case lack of attribution is a kind of mis-attribution, and I think
must be the reason that section 2.a) of the GPLv2 exists.
If he really did violate the license then this has to be sorted out. He
should probably also use some other name to rule out confusions such as
the one you just experienced.
he used a different name than any Fons had used. his name did still
include
the four letters "zita". when people like jeffg (who even after repeated
explanations continue to
spout nonsense about how block structured audio processing on Linux or any
other general purpose OS actually works) take GPL'ed code and fail to
interact in any way with the original author, they are not violating the
letter of the GPL but they are violating a big part of its "real world
spirit".
Actually I think JeffG was explicitly violating section 2.a).
Do you disagree based on the degree to which the original code was
modified, that it no longer constituted "modified files" but were instead
new files which were not subject to this clause?
"a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that you changed the files and the date of any change."
If they were that new then they should not have included the copyright
header with Fons's name.
--
Chris Caudle