On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Neil C Smith <n...@neilcsmith.net> wrote:
> On 11 October 2014 12:51, Kjetil Matheussen <k.s.matheus...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On 10-10-2014 21:14, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > > >> > And as a final topping on the cake, that whole crappy thing is > >> > presented as if I were the author of it all. No mention at all > >> > that things have been modified, and by whom or why. This alone > >> > is a clear violation of the license under which zita-at1 was > >> > released. And whoever did it doesn't even have the courage to > >> > identify him/herself. > >> > > > > I can understand you are very angry about this. Does GPL > > really allow someone to use someone else's GPL code, > > release it, and pretend everything was written by the original > > person? > > > > Unlike what Peder said above, no it doesn't. > > "5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. > ... > a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, > and giving a relevant date." > > That's from v3, but v2 has a similar statement IIRC. > > v3 also allows to add the following optional terms > > "d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or > authors of the material; or > e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade > names, trademarks, or service marks; or" > > which would allow Fons to protect his name and "zita", though I guess > not retrospectively. > > Please don't use this as an excuse to turn away from the open-source > ethos - there are many pros, if a few con(artists)s! ;-) > > Thanks for making that clear. Fons wrote it too though, as you quoted, but it seems like I had forgotten that part when I was finished reading his message.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev