What the heck?

[double7]

So many misunderstandings !!!


[...]


The GPL says nothing about crediting former authors

Does it indirectly do this?


"For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions."


The easiest way to do so is not to mention them.


And i would like to remember that the GPL is a direct point to point licence, from distributor to receiver, not from author to receiver.

 

[Linopoly]

So many misunderstandings !!!


[...]


The GPL says nothing about crediting former authors

Does it indirectly do this?


"For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions."


The easiest way to do so is not to mention them.


And i would like to remember that the GPL is a direct point to point licence, from distributor to receiver, not from author to receiver.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and treat this as a serious comment. It is completely unreasonable to interpret a requirement that modified versions should not be confusingly labeled to mean that it's ok or even encouraged to misrepresent the origins of a work. Besides that, it is always required that copyright information is left intact and included with the modified application, even in the MIT and BSD licenses which both otherwise attach few restrictions and allow for closed source derivative works.

 

[double7]

It is completely unreasonable to interpret a requirement that modified versions should not be confusingly labeled to mean that it's ok or even encouraged to misrepresent the origins of a work. Besides that, it is always required that copyright information is left intact and included with the modified application

Even bigger and strictly GPL'd distributions do not always credit its authors in an easily detectable way.

Spoiler

For example my little linux box:


~# bash --version


GNU bash, version 3.2.39(1)-release (i486-pc-linux-gnu)


Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.


~# mc --version


GNU Midnight Commander 4.6.2-pre1


Virtual File System: tarfs, extfs, cpiofs, ftpfs, fish


With builtin Editor


[...]


Data types: char 8 int 32 long 32 void * 32 off_t 64 ecs_char 8


~# ls --version


ls (GNU coreutils) 6.10


Copyright © 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.


License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>


This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.


There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.


Written by Richard Stallman and David MacKenzie.


----


But this may be a retro linux installation.^^

It is correct the copyright information must left intact and included.


The copyright information is the "GNU General Public License" aka GPL itself.


I am with dave, the GPL can not be used for crediting author history.


The GPL itself say what it is for in the first words:

Preamble


The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.

It's a license for software. It is neither for authors nor persons.


And i am with you and all others who think it very bad style removing an author history credit information. But that are two different things. Please do not misuse/abuse the GPL for what is not written within.


The GPL protects the right for changing the software. It's possible to remove or replace entire other authors work from it and release a new version. In that case, the former author does not have to do anything with the new version and he could be removed from copyright/credits history. But do you really want to go on this function by function, line by line, word by word, letter by letter, copyright mirco-management for free software?


I don't. But you can be sure that i will have an eye on the "dev-fund for the pandora usage" carefully.

 

[Linopoly]

This isn't about some soft notion of author credit, it's about copyright notices, which appear in your examples as the little snippet that says Copyright © <year> <legal entity>. Those copyright notices are untouchable, like a sacred cow. They are only so short in the examples you've chosen because the FSF requires contributors to sign over their copyright to the FSF. You say that this is "not written within" the GPL, but it is, and the MIT and BSD licenses have similar requirements, even for binary-only copies:

Spoiler

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Incidentally, copyright assignment is a good way for any project to discourage contributions, because you're asking people to not just work for free, but also to disavow any rights they might have as a result of being the original author.


The bottom line is that if you are licensing a pile of source code via any license, no matter how liberal, you need to leave those notices intact in every source file (or remove the entire source file(s) if it offends you that much), and make sure that binary versions convey every unique copyright notice and licensing summary that would be applicable, even if this results in a long and diverse list in your about dialog. There's no way to justify an N64oid application that doesn't do this. If you're selling an app that is licensed under the GPL, the written offer to provide source code isn't enough to comply, and stating that the entire work is licensed under the GPL is not enough to comply, you have to leave in all of the relevant copyright notices as well.

 

[craigix]

Does anyone know if google or apple ever take the money back from your bank account if you break any licences? Has here ever been a case go to court?

 

[neko]

Does anyone know if google or apple ever take the money back from your bank account if you break any licences? Has here ever been a case go to court?

There were some cases where Google withheld adsense payments that did go to court. Basically they hold onto the money for awhile before they pay you, and if they think you broke the agreement then they keep the money.


Also, ZodTTD got his Google Checkout account suspended over Sony's trademark complaint, so I guess they keep the money from that too.

Did they cancel your Google Checkout as well? I got that suspended as well.


All very odd, considering this is all over a logo I used for my icon. I was just going to change the logo and be compliant, then I get my apps pulled and my accounts suspended "indefinitely".

 

[Exophase]

Keeping money earned from work they determined was illicit.. sounds to me like that makes Google the thieves. They should at least refund the buyers, although they can't make them "give back" the software.

 

[neko]

Keeping money earned from work they determined was illicit.. sounds to me like that makes Google the thieves. They should at least refund the buyers, although they can't make them "give back" the software.

In the case of adsense, they do refund the buyers. As for what's happening with ZodTTD, I don't know.