In article <4980a453$0$21838$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
"David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
85bptrnsam.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85bptrnsam.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
>
> The recipient of GPLed software is free to declare the GPL void and
> revert to default copyright rules.
>
What is at issue today, though, is the nature of such "default copyright
rules". If there is no fee charged to use the work or to redistribute
the
work, the copyright can be ignored unless the author can show some degree
of
harm to himself.
If we're talking about Party A redistributing Party B's unmodified GPL'd
work without making the source available, this may be true. But this is
trivial, since the source is available to anyone who wants it in this
instance from Party B. If a court found against the GPL in a case along
these lines, nothing substantial would change.
If we're talking about Party A modifying Party B's GPL'd work and
redistributing the modified software without making the source
available, it seems fairly clear that Party B *has* been harmed in this
transaction.