🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan11.215534.27348@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1isogrINN3k3@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>>I now decide to write C, which also uses subroutine S.  If I take S from A,
>>>C is infected with the GPL.  If I take S from B, C is not.
>>>Yet the two copies of S are still identical, byte for byte.  I'm stuck; any
>>>third party can say "oh, you just took S from the GPL program.  So C falls
>>>under the GPL, so I can copy C".  Can _this_ happen and is _this_ intended?
>>Just because he thinks it came from the GPL program doesn't make it so.
>>I don't think someone receiving C can sue you over this, as there is no
>>contract between you and he that says anything about source availability.
>
>No, no, it's not the party receiving C who sues.  It's my competitor who
>copies.  "You took it from C" is just my competitor's excuse for pirating my
>work.  _I_ have to sue _him_; his possession of the excuse "well, he took it
>from C, so it's GPLed and freely copyable" is his defense against my claim
>that he pirated my stuff.

Yes, you would have to sue him.  But I don't think he would have a valid
defense.

The GPL requires you to distribute your source code.  But if you fail to
distribute your source code, it doesn't give someone the right to steal it.
Violating the GPL only gives the party you received the GPLed code from the
right to enjoin you from distribution (since that is the only right that
was dependent on obeying the rules of the GPL).

And if you didn't receive GPLed code in the first place then there's no one
to do even this.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar