On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Just like the Mepis/Zenwalk examples I used previously in the > thread, they modified the code and released it, yet they were not > releasing the changes/what they modified back to the community. They didn't have to. All the GPL required of them that they allegedly didn't do was to offer those who got their binaries from them a chance to obtain the corresponding sources. > They got into some kind of trouble and were forced to release the > code/make it available AFAIK, nobody can be forced to do so. The most a copyright holder of GPLed sotware can get from a court for the defendant to cease distribution, so that the infringement stops, plus damages. Releasing the code to rectify the harm caused by the infringement can be part of the negotiation to reduce or even remove the damages. I don't know of any court who's ever ordered someone to release source code to satisfy the requirements of a copyright (pure) license. How could it? It migth very well be the case that the infringing party doesn't even *have* the source code, and can't possibly get it. > The restrictions or the viral part of the GPL is what bites many > people and what turns them against it :( Please don't call it viral. It isn't viral. Not even close. That's a lie spread by the enemies of the GPL. It only applies to derived works, i.e., its freedom is an inheritance that a GPLed program leaves only its descendants. > Many authors have changed licenses to others besides the GPL, > because according to them, it restricts their freedoms :( As long as they still respect others' freedoms, that's fine. Unfortunate, but fine. http://fsfla.org/circular/2007-078#1 > http://www.slax.org/modules.php?author=151 > Not all the modules are GPL, there is one GNU/Grub. I use the > source and build it according to rules of creating modules for Slax. > Is there any chance I can get sued because I created those modules? Of getting sued? Sure, anyone can sue anyone else for any reason :-) I think the question you wanted to ask is, is it likely that such a lawsuit would be legitimate and successful, right :-) I don't have all the facts right now, and I'm not a lawyer anyway, so I won't comment on the specifics. In general, if you combine into a single program code under some specific version of the GPL with code under other licenses, you only have permission to distribute the result if the other licenses are compatible with that specific version of the GPL. For a (not necessarily complete) list of licenses that are compatible with the GPL, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses If you need help to determine whether some Free Software package you're working on is in compliance with applicable Free Software licenses, or have doubts about Free Software licensing in general, the FSF offers a service to Free Software developers and users: just e-mail your question to licensing@xxxxxxxx > Am I violating any GPL rules when I posted those modules on the Slax > website? The sources are freely available, the build scripts is > contained within each module, does that satisfy the GPL? >From what you say, you're clearly not in intentional infringement, but this is not enough to tell whether there is any unintentional infringement. The important questions are: - whether you copied code whose copyright is held by someone else, and that you don't have permission to sub-license, into these packages, and whose licensing terms do not permit you (or any other person) to extend to others the permissions encoded in the GPL, over the whole of the combined work. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
