On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 11:49:56AM +0200, Sebastian Ley wrote: > Am Sonntag, 13. Juni 2004 11:25 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes: > > > > While it's reasonable to request access to source code for the wrapper, > > > it seems a gross overreaction to talk about its omission being > > > "illegal", when it's just as likely that the copyright file has > > > misattributed authorship to Roman of a wrapper that James wrote (in > > > which case he's within his rights to engage in binary-only distribution > > > of a work he's placed under the GPL). > > > > Maybe James is the only person that could sue himself for distributing > > it. Doesn't make it right though. > > A copyrightholder may do each and everything with his code. He is never bound > by any license he imposes on his work. In the case of the GPL, that's only true if you're talking about the *original* copyright holder, which in this case isn't true. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature