On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:18 lase...@gmail.com wrote: > Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code.
I don't think this is correct. It would only mean that if he were not to GPL the code he would be in violation of the original author's copyrights (this is a generic he here and I am not speaking to this particular case as I have not followed this closely enough.) If he did not want to GPL his own code, he could stop distribution, work out another license with the original author or any number of other things surely. He would still have the already existing copyright violations to face should the original author choose to persue them though. > That is > the viral nature of GPL. End of story. Not putting out source or including > the license files does not make his changes/code not be GPL. However, having the binary claim to be GPL but not releasing the needed source does not stop it from being under the GPL to my initial understanding. > I think you > are thinking too much in the vain of convention copyrights. The code is > automatically GPL by way of use of other GPL code. It no longer is some > independent proprietary code solely belonging to the original copyright > holder once mixed together. If I get the time, I seem to remember some FSF pages that disagree with this and point rather to the thoughts I posted above but I am snowed under at the moment. > > Raymond all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
