Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 20, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
probably no one would bother to prove the lineage knowing that an
identical non-GPL'd copy existed.
And, even if one did, AFAIK the copyright over the code in question is
held solely by the party who first offered it under a more permissive
license, so why would she bother to enforce a less permissive license,
even if she could? But then, IANAL.
Agreed that there is next to no chance for enforcement in such a case,
but does your reading of the GPL not indicate that non-GPL distribution
of copies of anything ever covered by its work-as-a-whole provision is
prohibited? I don't see any escape clause. Separately packaged
dual-licensed packages might leave the choice of subsequent
redistribution up to the recipient, but I don't see any provision for
snipping a function out of covered code and re-using it in a way the GPL
would not permit.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
fedora-list mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
