FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-25-2008, 08:12 PM
"Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso"
 
Default Blocking Gmail ads

On 25/05/2008, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> 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.

Anyways.

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 05-25-2008, 08:45 PM
Andrew Sackville-West
 
Default Blocking Gmail ads

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 03:12:44PM -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 25/05/2008, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> 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
GPL. ouch.


.02. It's an interesting subject.

A
 
Old 05-25-2008, 09:11 PM
Steve Lamb
 
Default Blocking Gmail ads

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> Since Airbus doesn't
> have copyright on the code they modified (the original authors who
> GPLed it still have that copyright, under the interpretation of
> derived works), they can't claim copyright infringement.

Still trying to figure out how this conclusion was reached. Seems very
presumptuous.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:40 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org