Re: GNU licenses

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> [...]
>> So then I guess I _can_ do the following? Yay!:
>> 
>> 1. Make non-GPL program.
>> 
>> 2. Combine a little bit of someone else's GPL program.
>> 
>> 3. Release the _combined work_ under GPL.
>> 
>> 4. Take a bit of my _original work_ from the *original*
>> part of said combined work and put it in another
>> original work, this time one with NObody else's code
>> in it,
>> 
>> 5. Release that closed-source and non-GPL
>
> You may have problems enforcing (against strangers) your copyright
> (and patents) in "_original work_ from the *original* part of said
> combined work" after step 3 because in spite of step 5, your work is
> still available under the GPL to the entire general public.

Not at all.  He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts.
That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms
corresponding to the version they have acquired access to.  If it is
the GPLed version, he can enforce the GPL's conditions on the
recipients.

> Infringes will simply claim that they are GPL licensees and just ask
> you what do you want them to do in order to cure whatever
> deficiencies in their performance. They may also try to invalidate
> the GPL on the grounds of copyright misuse/antitrust... and, on
> success, that would cause copyright impotence for all GPL infected
> copyrights.

That is the usual Terekhov-babble.  Since the courts don't show a
history of falling for that, nothing one would need to worry about.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum