The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't release under the GPL and at the same time violate the GPL.
Andrew On 11/5/05, Arc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > > I don't know what you mean by "determine sourcecode", but I can take > > my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want. > > (Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do, > > but I could do it.) > > I disagree. > > By licensing software under the GPL, the author has made a written offer to > provide the source code, and if they later refuse to provide the source code, > it's quite conceivable that a lawyer could force them to in court. > > After all, a license is a form of a contract, and the GPL grants rights to the > source code, so it's pretty clear to even a layman. > > If you want a more definite answer, email Eben Moglen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > > Diversity is the Fuel of Evolution, > Conformity its Starvation. > Be Radical. Be New. Be Different. > Feed Evolution with Everything You Are. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See store for details. Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
