Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[Chris Jefferson]

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> Chris Jefferson wrote:
>
> > First of all, let me say Hello!
> >
> > Also, let me point out that (I hope) I'm not a troll. I've just been
> > working on a project with some friends and we are now considering what
> > licence to release it under. I'd quite like the GPL, but a number of my
> > friends would perfer a "you can read the code, but you can't distribute
> > altered versions" style licence.
> >
> > The reason for this is that they believe that really bad things can
> > happen to GPLed code. 
>
>
> If thats the case then don't use the GPL, but don't tell me not to.
I would never dream of telling you such a thing, I don't believe I ever 
did. What I'm trying to do here is to decide if I want to use the GPL.

> > Therefore I was hoping someone could tell me, what
> > is the worst someone can do?
> >
> > Some example thoughts we had..
> >
> > 1) Someone could just take our source, remove all copyright notices from
> > both the source and displayed when the app is run and put their own on
>
>
> There have already been a couple of cases of companies distributing
> binaries derived from GPL sources which the company claimed was their
> own code. A quick disassembly of the code showed otherwise and the
> company was publicly humiliated.
>
> Stealing and releasing source code like this is far, far, FAR more
> difficult.

I think you may have misunderstood my point. Of course people can 
illegally steal source. The question is can they do this, distribute the 
new source and remain GPL compliant?
> > 2) Someone could take our source, make minor alterations to it, and then
> > redistribute it without admiting they'd changed it and leaving our
> > copyright notices intact (both in source and in the help/about box),
> > making it look like we wrote the evil version.
>
>
> If it was a binary only version, then yes its possible, but again,
> a comparison with the real binary would quickly reveal the truth.
>
> You should also note that if you release a binary only product,
> a semi skilled cracker/virus writer could still modify that 
> binary to do evil things even without the source code.
ditto, the question is can they do this and remain within the GPL if 
they release source?