Dan's Guardian

[Jon Pruente]

Under GLP V2 Sec.2, he can release the program with GPL sections and
non-GPL sections.  I'm not familiar with DG but if there are clearly
separate non-GLP sections (ie, the blacklist, etc) then he has a full
right to ask for limitations of copying those.  If contributions are
sent to him without GPL notices, then he might have the right to
include them in non-GLP sections of DG, but under what terms, I'm not
sure.  If he makes it clear that submissions are to be treated in such
a manner and someone sends it to him anyway, then he might have legal
grounds.  If someone knowingly sends non-GLP modifications to him
after he has clearly posted his intentions on how to handle them, I
don't see a conflict with the GPL.  If they send GLP modifications to
him and he ignores the GPL requirements, then he's got issues.  How
many people really take the time to put the GPL notice on a quick hack
or mod?  If you don't, and it's not a mod to GPL portions of the code,
you are at likely the mercy of whatever rights the receiver wants to
claim (if they are claimed in advance, I'm sure).

Jon.


On 12/13/06, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 December 2006 17:23, Dale Beams wrote:
> > It's not the GPL that is muddy.  It is statements such as (c) and the
> > following;
> >
> > Quote "All contributions from other authors are vetted and incorporated by
> > me (Daniel Barron). All contributors automatically hand over all copyright
> > to me. What contributors get in return is fame, the feature they want, the
> > bug they fixed incorporated, and a warm fuzzy feeling that they are also
> > helping others who get the software for free."
>
> There are a number of proprietary company websites which claim at least an
> unrestricted license on idea submissions. Not to say that makes it right or
> legal, but it's at least common-place.
> _______________________________________________
> Kclug mailing list
> Kclug at kclug.org
> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
>