|From:||Martin Nicolás Carbone|
|Date:||Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:01:32 -0300|
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> The "GPL Edition" is "GPL v3 licenced" (and for use only in free projects,
> of course), but is primarily Obfuscript; then it is nonfree software; then
> it is not real GPL v3 licenced. Then It's a Lie!
It is certainly misleading. If they know their practice is
misleading, and do it intentionally, that's lying.
> The "Commercial Edition" can be used in proprietary/privative projects, and
> they say that they sell me the unobfuscated code.
To see if they understand what they are doing, we can
ask them, "do I get the real source code code under GPLv3"?
And ask them, "How can I get the real source code of the GPL edition"?
It's possible that they will respond with the real source code and we
will see this is an innocent misunderstanding. We owe it to them (and
to ourselves) to give them the chance to do the right thing.
> ¿Is not a "violation" of the GPL, if they are lying about the real licence
> of their released code?
No. The GPL, like nearly all other free licenses, is permission
granted by the copyright holders to everyone else. If someone _else_
uses the material in violation of the license conditions, that is
copyright infringement and the copyright holder can sue.
But if the copyright holder uses the material in some other way, he's
not going to sue himself. In other words, no matter what you do, you
don't violate your own license on your own code.
The only leverage available to us here is possible public criticism.
So let's start by talking with them. What is the _precise_ URL of
the obfuscated source code?
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|