| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
A new source of anti-GPL FUDA new source of anti-GPL FUDPosted Nov 21, 2003 20:20 UTC (Fri) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688)In reply to: A new source of anti-GPL FUD by stanmuffin Parent article: A new source of anti-GPL FUD The FSF doens't have anything to do with it unless the GPL code that was included was copyrighted by the FSF. If you included GPL'd code and the copyright holder of that code was someone other than the FSF then you'll have to work out a deal with them. If they demand that you make source available, then you've got a problem.
(Log in to post comments)
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 22, 2003 10:30 UTC (Sat) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] Not really. If you combine GPL code with non-GPL code you violate copyright. Makingthe rest of your source code is a solution to solve the copyright violation. Copyright violation is in principle a criminal act. However, you do not go to jail for accidentally including GPL code in your product. Unless you refuse to take out the code, there is nothing to fear here. In addition, the copyright holder usually has had (financial) damage because of the copyright violation. In a civil procedure he can demand the pirate to compensate the damage. Now, I think the only damage you have when someone steals your GPL code is the money that you would earn by writing that code at normal payment rates. The "pirate" would have to pay that. In other words, there is no legal requirement to make the rest of your source GPL, it is just a legal solution, but by removing the code and paying the damages, it is not strictly necessary to do so.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:56 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Copyright violation is in principle a criminal act.That is not true. Criminal infringement only applies under certain circumstances, as per Title 17, U.S. Copyright Law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
|
|
||||||||||||