4 ms·
That argument would have to be made by the actual owner of the copyright though
by ikiris 2y ago
That argument would have to be made by the actual owner of the copyright though
- layer8 2y agoApple shouldn’t act as a judge here in either case.
- lxgr 2y agoThe text of the GPL automatically grants a license to all derivative works without the original author having to do anything explicitly, if I understand it corretly: > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein [...] So while the original author(s) could file license infringement terms against the author of the derivative software, they don't have to in order for third parties to be able to use the derivative under the terms of the GPLv2. At least that's my read on the GPL, and it matches the expected outcome – I'm not a lawyer and I'm not aware of any court cases focusing on this particular clause.
- ikiris 2y agoThat has nothing to do with who has standing to actually enforce the underlying copyright for the part that would be infringed under a violation of the relevant portion of the license.