Hi Paul, a question: given you agree that the code without proper license header must be under GPL as derived work of GPL code, what if Debian added such the missing header to those files that miss it before packaging, so that the source packages comply with the License?
While I am just another non-lawyer on the Internet, I'm not much convinced that if a distributor violates the GPL causing its termination, downstream receivers of the software doesn't receive a license themselves. AFAIK the GPL license is always direct and not revocable from the copyright holder to the user: the compliance of middlemen doesn’t affect users. If the only possible license for that code is GPL (as it depends on GPL code) one might argue that the lack of GPL header is a bug that might fool a user to use that file as permissively licensed, terminating his own license forever! People can introduce (say) MIT code in a GPL software and while the software as a whole is GPL, that MIT code remains MIT until modified with a patch under GPL. The ambiguity the upstream devs are trying to exploit is another thing, so I agree that they might be violating the GPL if they don't clearly states that all files lacking any header is to be considered under GPL (but they could argue that this is actually the default, meaning you are debating about file details but not really the licensing... and I don’t think so). In any case if Debian distribute the code as GPL and that code can only EXIST as a GPL derivative (thus GPL itself) they are not violating anything, and they could easily add the missing headers just to protect the user from an accidental but definotive termination. What's your opinion on this? Giacomo
