Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd May 2006 17:43 UTC, submitted by anonymous
After Kororaa announced its GPL problems and me writing a column about it, the people behind Kororaa have now posted an in-depth follow-up: "I have been receiving lots of information which I have been sorting through, thank you to everyone who has emailed me (although I would have also thanked you personally via email). I contacted both ATI and nVidia for some clarification on particular issues, however neither have answered my questions. Nevertheless, this is what I have found so far."
Thread beginning with comment 126988
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Email completely justified
by archiesteel on Mon 22nd May 2006 23:49
in reply to "RE: Email completely justified"
Member since:2005-07-02
It's a license violation not a copyright violation.
If it's the former, then it's the latter. The GPL gives extra rights not normally given by copyright law. If you don't respect the license, then you don't have the right to redistribute the software (and therefore violate copyright laws if you still do).
Member since:
2005-07-06
Since the person who sent the email is actually a Linux (kernel) contributor, he/she is thus entitled to cry foul over the work he co-owns the copyright to.
You are completely within your rights to claim a copyright violation when you believe someone is actually violating your copyright! I think the real lunatics here are the people who think the person shouldn't have sent the email.
It's a license violation not a copyright violation.
The GPLv2 is simply not clear on this point and there is a lot of disagreement on LKML about this subject. The copyright holder as agreed that their code can be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2, but until someone takes this to court and clarifies things Kororaa can interpret the GPLv2 however they want. The burden of proof is on the kernel developer.
The GPLv3 is trying to clear this area up.