Posted by: andrecaldas
on September 29, 2004 12:54 PM
Connolly claims that since he is the copyright holder of the original code that he can prohibit redistribution of a derivative work of that code even though it's all licensed under the GPL.
He cannot prohibit redistribution, but he can prohibit distribution. The question is: did him distribute it himself? If he did, then he is in violation of the GPL. If he didn't, then the one who did is in violation of Connolly's copyrights.
Please, refer to the GPL FAQ:
<A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy" title="gnu.org">
stolen copy
</a gnu.org>
<A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods" title="gnu.org">
unreleased modifications
</a gnu.org>
The most important question, and only few people seems to be asking, is: "did Connolly distribuite its version of Mambo by any means?". And by "any means" includes: "binary form", "did he installed in his client's host?". If he did, and only if he did the modifications are GPL. If he distribuited it in binary form only, then he is in violation of the GPL
Also, comparing the outputed HTML code looks a little meaningless for me.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
GPL faq
Posted by: andrecaldas on September 29, 2004 12:54 PMHe cannot prohibit redistribution, but he can prohibit distribution. The question is: did him distribute it himself? If he did, then he is in violation of the GPL. If he didn't, then the one who did is in violation of Connolly's copyrights.
Please, refer to the GPL FAQ:
<A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy" title="gnu.org">
stolen copy
</a gnu.org>
<A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods" title="gnu.org">
unreleased modifications
</a gnu.org>
The most important question, and only few people seems to be asking, is: "did Connolly distribuite its version of Mambo by any means?". And by "any means" includes: "binary form", "did he installed in his client's host?". If he did, and only if he did the modifications are GPL. If he distribuited it in binary form only, then he is in violation of the GPL
Also, comparing the outputed HTML code looks a little meaningless for me.
Of course: IANAL
#