From: Daniel James <daniel@mo...> - 2003-04-30 08:17:57
> I don't think GPL is a layer on top of some other
> copyright information.
"To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we=20
add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives=20
everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's=20
code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution=20
terms are unchanged."=20
> By going GPL, you give up much
> of conventional copyright
That's false. You merely license the software on specific terms.=20
Proprietary software is also licensed on specific terms, but this=20
doesn't affect copyright law one bit either.
> >It could also be a violation of copyright without being a
> > violation of the GPL, by changing the program in a way that the
> > author of the current version of the GPL hadn't considered.
> The whole point of GPL is for people to change the work
> in ways the author hadn't considered.
The author of the software perhaps, not the author of the GPL.=20
Changing the name without adding functionality in order to pass off=20
the software as proprietary certainly goes against the spirit, if not=20
the letter, of the licence.
> This could be a case of misrepresentation/fraud that falls within
> the GPL requiring proper credit/attribution for work on the
You could be on to something there:
"The GPL requires all copies to carry an appropriate copyright notice"