[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Neil Williams wrote: | | I've been reading up on this again - the only ones who can push for a | violation of the GPL are the copyright holders. If that isn't declared as the | FSF, there's not a lot the FSF can do. As it stands, the copyright holder is | not identified so no-one can actually prosecute for a violation without first | proving their copyright.
I was thinking in term of FSF having some interest in ensuring that this term is not abused. Although it isn't clear what rights they have to the phrase "GNU GPL". Certainly the compliance labs might be able to advise.
| If, as Simon commented, you can show that the binary resulted from the given | source *or something derived from the given source*, then the code is covered | by the GPL and you can distribute it freely.
No, they could be the copyright holder, and thus allowed to distribute derived works under any licence they like.
The problem only arises because they give the impression that the work is GPL'ed.
| As above, if they confirm that what is already available IS the source code | for the binary, it is up to you - under the GPL - to say if that is | convenient and acceptable. You do still have the right to physical media.
Software shouldn't travel in trucks (whatever the GNU GPL says). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCbst7GFXfHI9FVgYRAg8JAJ9diYY5QPQ2Dlt1tXXdt8R0vp8kAgCglv3L 4defFW7664pO05zbaL/ZtYc= =NliS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe. FAQ: www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html