[sldev] RLV breakage, derivative works, and non-GPL patches

[Carlo Wood]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 08:44:44AM +0000, danteferret at gmail.com wrote:
> When I read this on here it surprised me. Enough to go "Wow that's so blatantly
> against the gpl, how are they getting away with it?". So I looked at the page.
> And.. that's not what it says at all! It could not even remotely be interpreted
> to say that. As some random third party, normally I wouldn't reply. But that's
> just rude to post such lies here in public. You obviously have some hidden
> agenda, and are trying to make it look bad.


I am not a lawyer, but here is what I understand of this:

- You can create a patch that alters GPLs code and distribute
  just that patch by itself (or along with the GPL-ed source code)
  without that the patch has to be GPL-ed.

- If the users that downloaded the patch apply it to GPL-ed
  source, the result is not purely GPL anymore and therefore
  the GPL forbids it's distribution (it would be derived work
  and therefore has to be GPL if you want to redistribute it)
  in either source code form (after applying this patch) or
  in binary form.

So, if there is the possibility to download a patched version
of this viewer in binary form, then that is surely a violation
of the GPL. But if ONLY the patch by itself is distributed then
not, and it's more the GPL that forbids the redistribution after
applying it then the patch license itself.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>