On 27 January 2014 19:52, Vesa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/27/2014 09:24 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> Yes, it may create a copyright violation - but it still doesn't >> implicitly constitute a release under the licence. - d.
> Why not? What are you basing this opinion on? > Arguably, if one writes code for a GPL-licensed software, then send that > code to a remote repository, that counts as distribution or propagation > of the code. Thus, any claim that this code is not under GPL would > inherently be invalid, as any such claim would be in violation of the > license which the contributor has implicitly agreed to by modifying and > propagating modified code. > Do you know of any case law or legal precedent that would prove my > stance false? I'd seriously like to know. When the SFLC sues someone for GPL violation, note that they don't say "ahahaha, your contribution is now automatically GPL" - they say "you have violated copyright, we will settle for you releasing your contribution under GPL". This is also pretty much the situation you are describing. I presume the SFLC count as experts in such matters. - d. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
