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