Well, I guess then people nowdays should be keeping more watch on ANYTHING they release into public... It is just going to get more complex i assume, with adding more lisences, as creative commons has kindly done.. however i do like theyre lisence, as it actually covers a .txt file, or even a .c file... wich is mainly why i have used it once in past for some code, so I could then keep an eye on it, but never have looked atall, at GPL. Anyhow, thx Valdi for shedding more light on things.
On 7 October 2011 07:03, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 06:36:51 +1100, xD 0x41 said: > > > I am still abit worried though, of the actual NON free prouct, and then, > > what if you add to that, and he adds it to his paid-fopr app, or worse, > > doesnt even put it into the exploit-pack but, rather puts it into ONLY > the > > paid product. > > One of the good things about the GPL (as opposed to the BSD license), is > that > you *can't* take GPL code private - if he's adding it to the proprietary > app > and shipping the result under a non-GPL license, he's in violation of the > GPL > and could end up in court. A lot of embedded hardware people have gotten > into trouble that way. The *vast* majority have cleaned up their act and > complied > with the GPL requirements by either removing the GPL code or releasing > source > as required by the GPL. A few have been silly enough to let it get to > court, > and have universally been handed their butts by the judge. > > http://www.gpl-violations.org/ > > >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
