Blocking Gmail ads
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 03:12:44PM -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 25/05/2008, Ron Johnson <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Now as to whether misappropriating that source code is a crime is
> > beyond my knowledge. debian-legal would probably know.
> I'm starting to think it is, because you do not receive a license if
> you don't obtain the code by legal means. Which further makes me think
> what exactly constitutes receiving a license.
I tend to agree. The requirements of the GPL only apply (as I
understand it, usual disclaimers apply) to distributed code. If you
make changes to the code, those changes are copyright to the
changer. If those changes aren't distributed, they are not subject to
the GPL. Further, the copyright holder retains all their rights unless
they otherwise license them. Leaking modified code would be
distribution without license to do so. So the leaker would certainly
be violating copyright. And if they leaked GPL'ed code without source,
they would also be violating the license agreement on the portion of
the code subject to GPL.
Sounds like twice damned to me. The leaker certainly doesn't have
rights to distribute the unreleased code and likely violates the
.02. It's an interesting subject.