On 20/03/2019, Paul Jakma <p...@jakma.org> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > >> It goes without saying that adding a GPL header to those files that >> need it would be totally equivalent and more fool-proof. > > After X years of not doing so, denying the applicability of the GPL to > files which are explicitly dependent on GPL code for function and > comprehension, refusing to implement conditions required by the GPL, and > organising a corner-of-industry attack on the career and employment of > one of the GPL copyright holders who objected (and objected in helpful > ways, providing constructive ways forward repeatedly): Just adding a > header will no longer solve this.
While I understand your frustration and agree with your overall interpretation of the issue, I think that this can only be established in a court. Given the dimension and power of the counter parts you cite, this is going to be a steep road. When something similar happened to me (see https://medium.com/@giacomo_59737/what-i-wish-i-knew-before-contributing-to-open-source-dd63acd20696 for details), I decided to build enough evidences that they violated my copyright to protect my codebase, but to not go to fight in court despite the evidence (IMO) of the termination of their GPL license on their own codebase. That's for two reasons. First of the counterparts was going to be Google and another would have been SFC. But more importantly, I didn't really want to hurt or risk to end Harvey development, as an alternative exploration of the Plan 9 legacy. As I said, the more forks, the better: more roads explored, more knowledge gain for the whole humanity. Here I suggest you all to find a friendly solution anyway for the same reason. > Also, if 3rd parties were to do this, outside of a wider agreement with > copyright holders that would resolve all this, it would likely just > aggravate the situation further. Sorry, but I don't think so. If that code is GPL (as you say, and as I agree), adding a GPL header to it doesn't aggravate anything. It would just prevent people to violate the GPL and terminate their own grants on the whole GPL projects it derives by using it under a different license. Giacomo
