On 24 July 2014 16:15, Anthony J. Bentley <[email protected]> wrote: > Example: Some guy releases a game under the GPLv2. He sloppily copies in > a video filter from a GPLv3 project. The file containing the video filter > has no copyright statement. He's violating the law by including a file > with incompatible licensing. People later download his project and assume > the video filter is GPLv2-compatible. They unknowingly violate the law by > using the filter in their own GPLv2 projects. >
Nitpick: they violate the licence, not necessarily the law. IANAL, but it's easy to imagine that a court could find both versions similar enough in intent to find that no law was broken. (I mention this, because I also imagine that if it were a specific situation, saying on a public mailing list that someone broke the law would be potentially libellous). -- <Sefam> Are any of the mentors around? <jimregan> yes, they're the ones trolling you ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
