On 2018/02/23 01:11, Moritz Molch <liberty.z...@gmail.com> wrote: > The only question is, whether a judge forces him to give you the > sources or if he does it on his own.
I don't think so. Cary Audio have put themselves in a conflict situation; they have violated everybody's copyright. But they can't be forced, for example, to give me the Roon or MQA source code, because they don't own it. No judge can force them to give me code they aren't allowed to give away. For Cary Audio, it is impossible to obey the GPL, and thus the copyright violation cannot be resolved by coming into GPL compliance. They can only recover from the situation by making an agreement with the copyright holders whose rights they violated. Billy Wright is a top-level manager, he knows this, but he's not interested in resolving this properly; he wants the problem to just go away, to just disappear. Yes, in the Cary Audio case, I have already understood that it is impossible for them to publish the Roon/MQA source code. But at this stage, that's not what I'm after. Cary Audio didn't even publish the sources of code they themselves wrote, of which they own the copyright. The source tarball I got was heavily redacted, and lots of Cary Audio code was removed. I think it is obvious that I cannot forgive them with this kind of behavior. > This verdict against Skype Technologies might be of interest > (German): This is mostly about formal stuff (whether Skype's formal license declaration is enough), but I don't want to go after Cary Audio for formal mistakes. These don't matter much for me. I only want them to respect the spirit of the GPL, which is: make the full source code available. _______________________________________________ mpd-devel mailing list email@example.com http://mailman.blarg.de/listinfo/mpd-devel