Gervase Markham wrote: > It's only when you break a condition of all of them that he can sue, > because he knows you have no legal defence any more.
Not exactly. License L1 allows you to do A1, if (and only if) you follow term T1. No other license allows A1 or has term T1. You do A1, but don't follow T1. T1 is a condition of only one license (not "a condition of all of them"), but you can be sued. > > How can they if their contributions are now also licenced under the > > GPL? You see copyright makes no difference, it doesn't matter that > > the original author can do as they wish its others who gain rights in > > this. Making the GPL compulsory means that any GPL licensee of the > > same code can assume that any file which is identical, has the same > > licence language, etc, is released under the same conditions for all > > circumstances, there is nothing to gainsay that. Such a licensee > > could then reach into the original author's work and claim that other > > code was also affected by the GPL licence because of the use. > > You cannot enforce a copyright holder's license conditions back on the > copyright holder. nod. BTW: If you only have the binary, you don't know, which license terms stood in the source file used to compile the binary, because they are C++ comments only.
